gjhdiver 0
Recommended Posts
jraf 0
Ron you are a canopy Nazi and I respect you and your oppinion. As you well know I have listened to your advice among others from the very beginning of my skydiving career and I have stayed safe.
Note that in this thread I have mentioned ZHills as a safe place and it is safe for all us who started jumping there because of the availability of training and advice. It is safe because I have myself witnessed AFF instuctors requesting students not to continue their training, if the instructor had a bad feeling about it.
I am opposing new regulation because I don't believe it is needed. How many low jump skydivers hurt themselves during a high performance landing at ZHills lately? I don't see that regulation as a contributor to safety. More training is obviously a great thing and I support it.
Last to answer your doubt: This is not to take it out with the moderators - I do that in the talk back forum when I call them dopes. This is my take on the usefullnes of regulation.
We differ here, it will not stop us from being friends, will it?
Note that in this thread I have mentioned ZHills as a safe place and it is safe for all us who started jumping there because of the availability of training and advice. It is safe because I have myself witnessed AFF instuctors requesting students not to continue their training, if the instructor had a bad feeling about it.
I am opposing new regulation because I don't believe it is needed. How many low jump skydivers hurt themselves during a high performance landing at ZHills lately? I don't see that regulation as a contributor to safety. More training is obviously a great thing and I support it.
Last to answer your doubt: This is not to take it out with the moderators - I do that in the talk back forum when I call them dopes. This is my take on the usefullnes of regulation.
We differ here, it will not stop us from being friends, will it?
jraf
Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275
Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275
Hooknswoop 19
QuoteThose who stand to reap the financial benefits of a potential regulation like this are those who signed the letter, God bless their little hearts.
How would I benefit financially?
BTW- you are still just complaining and not offering solutions. I even made it clicky for you. You obviously have an opinion on the subject, what is your idea for a solution? Or would you just rather whine and complain, which I admit is a whole lot easier than actually putting forth the effort to try and fix the problem?
Part of the problem or part of the solution.............
Derek
Ron 7
QuoteRon you are a canopy Nazi and I respect you and your oppinion. As you well know I have listened to your advice among others from the very beginning of my skydiving career and I have stayed safe.
Not every place has me or someone like me.
QuoteNote that in this thread I have mentioned ZHills as a safe place and it is safe for all us who started jumping there because of the availability of training and advice.
Not every place is Zhills. There are issues at other DZ's....
A story I was told long ago...An old man stops to build a bridge...It takes many years. A young man walks up to the old guy as he puts the last nail in the bridge....The young man asks "Dude, how long have you been building this bridge?" The old man tells him many years. The young guy asks why did he do it? Why did he waste part of his life to use a bridge he didn't need.
The old man says "I didn't build it for me, I built it for you."
Just because I was left to try and survive the learning process, does not mean I should make, or even let you do it on your own.
I don't propose canopy regulations cause they will help me.....I do it to help those that don't know better.
I want others to have it safer and easier than I did...But safer comes first.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
murps2000 86
I have two questions about the regulations mentioned in the letter.
Right now, an A-licensed jumper can build experience and jump numbers, and progressively down-size, and, barring any major safety breaches, no one will say they are operating outside the BSR's, correct? Under the new reg, if one wants to downsize beyond a certain WL, are they required to get the next higher license in order to do so without major hassle? Major hassle being the need to prove to every S&TA at a DZ other than home that they have the skill to safely operate the wing they are flying.
2) Would the WL requirements for licenses be the same for all, regardless of jumpers' exit weights? I ask this because the higher performance of heavier WL ratios does not seem to translate to the weight scale in a linear manner. A 1.25:1 loaded canopy does not seem to be as radical to a 250lb. jumper as it does to a 125 lb. jumper.
Right now, an A-licensed jumper can build experience and jump numbers, and progressively down-size, and, barring any major safety breaches, no one will say they are operating outside the BSR's, correct? Under the new reg, if one wants to downsize beyond a certain WL, are they required to get the next higher license in order to do so without major hassle? Major hassle being the need to prove to every S&TA at a DZ other than home that they have the skill to safely operate the wing they are flying.
2) Would the WL requirements for licenses be the same for all, regardless of jumpers' exit weights? I ask this because the higher performance of heavier WL ratios does not seem to translate to the weight scale in a linear manner. A 1.25:1 loaded canopy does not seem to be as radical to a 250lb. jumper as it does to a 125 lb. jumper.
jraf 0
Read my lips
I don't propose a solution other than natural progression as I don't see a major problem. Please understand it and digest it.
If you are really concerned about your safety, I strongly suggest that you don't jump out of planes. Unless you are a bird there is some risk involved.
I don't propose a solution other than natural progression as I don't see a major problem. Please understand it and digest it.
If you are really concerned about your safety, I strongly suggest that you don't jump out of planes. Unless you are a bird there is some risk involved.
jraf
Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275
Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275
Hooknswoop 19
QuoteRight now, an A-licensed jumper can build experience and jump numbers, and progressively down-size, and, barring any major safety breaches, no one will say they are operating outside the BSR's, correct?
Correct
QuoteUnder the new reg, if one wants to downsize beyond a certain WL, are they required to get the next higher license in order to do so without major hassle? Major hassle being the need to prove to every S&TA at a DZ other than home that they have the skill to safely operate the wing they are flying.
Incorrect. A logbook endorsement would alleviate the need to demonstrate proficiency at a new DZ if the jumper did so at their home DZ.
Quote2) Would the WL requirements for licenses be the same for all, regardless of jumpers' exit weights? I ask this because the higher performance of heavier WL ratios does not seem to translate to the weight scale in a linear manner. A 1.25:1 loaded canopy does not seem to be as radical to a 250lb. jumper as it does to a 125 lb. jumper.
It would and it is not a perfect solution. Nor is 2,000 feet a safe minimum pull altitude for some canopies, regardless of the jumper’s experience. In this same manner, the idea is not perfect.
Derek
MarkM 0
Quote
2) Would the WL requirements for licenses be the same for all, regardless of jumpers' exit weights? I ask this because the higher performance of heavier WL ratios does not seem to translate to the weight scale in a linear manner. A 1.25:1 loaded canopy does not seem to be as radical to a 250lb. jumper as it does to a 125 lb. jumper.
I was kind of curious about this myself. Also what about the type of canopy?
Hooknswoop 19
QuoteI don't propose a solution other than natural progression as I don't see a major problem.
I see. How long have you been jumping? How many DZ's have you been to? How many times have you performed CPR on someone with a broken neck and jaw? How many times have you been a first responder to someone with a broken femur? Two broken femurs and a broken neck? How many people do you know have died under a good canopy? How many of your friends have died under a good canopy? How many people have you taken aside because there were flying a canopy either too aggressively or too small of a canopy, only to be told, “I know what I’m doing.” Then had to call 911 for?
Because you do not see a major problem does not mean it does not exist. It does.
I would like to see a solution put in place that will reverse the current trend of needless injuries and fatalities under good canopies.
QuoteIf you are really concerned about your safety, I strongly suggest that you don't jump out of planes. Unless you are a bird there is some risk involved.
I am fully aware of the risks of jumping from airplanes. I have also put the effort into making 3333 incident free skydives. Injuries from landing under good canopies do not have to happen, they can be prevented.
BTW- As of recently, I don’t jump from airplanes anymore. Too many people with your attitude.
Derek
Hooknswoop 19
Quotewhat about the type of canopy?
To be determined.
Derek
Quote***Under the new reg, if one wants to downsize beyond a certain WL, are they required to get the next higher license in order to do so without major hassle? Major hassle being the need to prove to every S&TA at a DZ other than home that they have the skill to safely operate the wing they are flying.
Incorrect. A logbook endorsement would alleviate the need to demonstrate proficiency at a new DZ if the jumper did so at their home DZ.
And how exactly do you anticipate this being enforced?
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
Hooknswoop 19
QuoteAnd how exactly do you anticipate this being enforced?
When you check in at the DZ, they would check your ID, USPA card, and logbook, and gear.
An alternative is putting your WL waiver on your USPA card.
Derek
so I have no WL card when I show up at a dz.
I have to open my main container to show manifest or the rigging loft my main?
What if I show up with a Spectre 190, then switch it out for my Vengance 135 after I get checked in?
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
I have to open my main container to show manifest or the rigging loft my main?
What if I show up with a Spectre 190, then switch it out for my Vengance 135 after I get checked in?
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
Hooknswoop 19
QuoteI have to open my main container to show manifest or the rigging loft my main?
I'm sure DZ's would take your word for it.
QuoteWhat if I show up with a Spectre 190, then switch it out for my Vengance 135 after I get checked in?
I suppose that would be up to the DZ. But if you switched canopies or lied about your canopy, I suppose they could do anything they wanted, ground you, tell you to leave, nothing, etc. Same as if you broke any other BSR.
Derek
You are missing my point. This is totally unenforceable. It's a feel-good so that when someone pounds in under a highly-loaded canopy outside of their prescribed wingloading ability, we can all just shake our heads and say, "bad him."
What's wrong with saying "bad him" now? -- Maybe before he runs to another dz, which may or may not have a USPA affiliation, and pounds in?
I appreciate your efforts and agree with much of what was in your proposal. I cannot go as far as to endorse wingloading requirements. Seems to me, the whole proposal is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
What's wrong with saying "bad him" now? -- Maybe before he runs to another dz, which may or may not have a USPA affiliation, and pounds in?
I appreciate your efforts and agree with much of what was in your proposal. I cannot go as far as to endorse wingloading requirements. Seems to me, the whole proposal is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
QuoteThose who stand to reap the financial benefits of a potential regulation like this are those who signed the letter,
You have got to be kidding me. You are really reaching deep on this one. You have just proven me correct, you like to bitch.
Since you obviously find it easier to bitch than provide a solution, I have some advice for you. Either find another sport or be prepared to be upset about the eventual changes. I can count at least 4 different articles in this months Parachutist alone that all address the need for better canopy training. So while you may think it's not a problem, the vast majority sees the bigger picture and realizes it has to be delt with. If you go back and read the article you will see the following verbage: "We recognize that any additional restrictions placed on skydivers should be considered very carefully" So while you're busy screaming "the sky is falling" ,the rest of the skydiving community will be busy finding a solution to this issue while keeping the above quote in mind.
"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING
jraf 0
I don't intend to try and outdo you as to the amount of first responses I have been through. I have been first on scen several times, and quite honestly 1 or 10 or even a 100 does not matter. It is not nice.
"BTW- As of recently, I don’t jump from airplanes anymore. Too many people with your attitude."
I am happy for you that you don't jump out of planes anymore. Now since you do not, why don't you comment on your current sport of choice and leave us to our own devices. We small unworthy folk can take care of ourselves.
"BTW- As of recently, I don’t jump from airplanes anymore. Too many people with your attitude."
I am happy for you that you don't jump out of planes anymore. Now since you do not, why don't you comment on your current sport of choice and leave us to our own devices. We small unworthy folk can take care of ourselves.
jraf
Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275
Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275
Hooknswoop 19
QuoteYou are missing my point. This is totally unenforceable. It's a feel-good so that when someone pounds in under a highly-loaded canopy outside of their prescribed wingloading ability, we can all just shake our heads and say, "bad him."
Are minimum pull altitude unenforceable? No, they are enforce all the time. We do not simply ignore someone that is pulling low and when they bounce, shake our heads and say, “bad him.” We talk to and if necessary ground someone that is pulling low. Why? Because it is very unsafe and if they don’t see that, then someone has to step in and either show them or not let them jump, for their own good.
QuoteWhat's wrong with saying "bad him" now? -- Maybe before he runs to another dz, which may or may not have a USPA affiliation, and pounds in?
Nothing, but that is the current system, which isn’t working. If there was no minimum pull altitude BSR, then an S & TA that told someone that he pulled too would be in for an argument. “I can handle it, I know what I’m doing.”, etc. With the BSR, the S & TA can simply say, “Pull above X,XXX from now on or you are grounded.” No argument. Plus the S & TA has a guideline that is easy to enforce. Above X,XXX, no problem, below X,XXX, problem. Of course judgement must still be exercised. For example if a jumper is pulling at 2,000 feet with a canopy that takes 1,500 feet to open, he can still step in and tell the jumper to pull higher. Of course, this all hinges on the DZO giving the S & TA the authority to enforce the BSR’s. If the S & TA does not have the authority to enforce the BSR’s, then they (all of them) count for nothing.
QuoteI appreciate your efforts and agree with much of what was in your proposal. I cannot go as far as to endorse wingloading requirements. Seems to me, the whole proposal is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
If the BSR’s are enforced at the DZ, it would work.
It will also give newer jumpers official guidelines for canopy control ability and WL that doesn’t exist on the national level now.
Derek
jraf 0
If viewing my oppinion is bitching to you my dear boy, then I rest my case.
You right, me wrong. Have the sandbox to yourself, and i will not be taking your toys either.
Salutations!
You right, me wrong. Have the sandbox to yourself, and i will not be taking your toys either.
Salutations!
jraf
Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275
Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275
sducoach 0
Then please do not place the responsibility upon your S&TA without the "authority". Many people have indicated an S&TA has that authority. They do not.
Please keep it limited to the facts.
Blues,
J.E.
Please keep it limited to the facts.
Blues,
J.E.
James 4:8
Hooknswoop 19
QuoteI don't intend to try and outdo you as to the amount of first responses I have been through. I have been first on scen several times, and quite honestly 1 or 10 or even a 100 does not matter. It is not nice.
Exactly, it is not nice at all. This is why the letter was written. To lower the rate of not nice incidents that can be prevented.
If you do not see that a problem exists, you will. Go to other DZ’s, get some more time in the sport, experience more than enough not nice moments, you will change your mind.
QuoteI am happy for you that you don't jump out of planes anymore. Now since you do not, why don't you comment on your current sport of choice and leave us to our own devices..
Because I feel that I have the experience to comment intelligently on this issue and owe it to the sport I was involved in for 8 years to do something about it. I added my name to that letter before I quit, so this issue is sort of a loose end for me.
I think it unwise of you to not only not seek, not listen to, but want my years of experience to be unavailable. I would think that someone that was serious might listen to others with much more experience than yourself. I wouldn't be a know-it-all. But that’s just me.
QuoteWe small unworthy folk can take care of ourselves
If that were true, then the letter would never have been written.
Derek
jraf 0
I listen. I listen a lot and with much attention. The point is I listen to those who have something to teach me. You will allow me to make the choice on my own as it is an important one.
As far as I am concerned I don't see the proposed regulation as a valid solution, just a bunch of mumble jumble. I agree completely with Ron on this one - not every DZ is like ZHills. I have been to quite a few others and must admit that they just don't go according to existing rules.
As far as I am concerned I don't see the proposed regulation as a valid solution, just a bunch of mumble jumble. I agree completely with Ron on this one - not every DZ is like ZHills. I have been to quite a few others and must admit that they just don't go according to existing rules.
jraf
Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275
Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275
QuoteAre minimum pull altitude unenforceable?
Almost entirely. First the s&ta has to see the low pull. Second, as that person who saw the infraction, you know exactly where he grabbed the handle? You lazer him as you saw him pull? Really, the rule has no teeth unless someone makes a stink over it.
QuoteNothing, but that is the current system, which isn’t working.
And this will work? This will eliminate fatalities? I don't believe that for a second.
QuoteIf the S & TA does not have the authority to enforce the BSR’s, then they (all of them) count for nothing.
Exactly
So rather than trying to spread canopy control around all the licenses (although I do feel that there should be at least a little more canopy something in the requirements for each of the licenses) why not use those five extra jumps students have to make now to build an intensive canopy control course within the student program? I did my first canopy control course (scott miller's) at jump #25 and it was perfect timing. If the student program is lacking in an area, let's beef it up! Don't reinvent the wheel and start imposing a whole bunch of bullshit on the rest of us--many of which have been through several canopy courses and worked with some of the best canopy pilots in the world--for something you can't guarantee will work.QuoteIt will also give newer jumpers official guidelines for canopy control ability...
Quote...and WL that doesn’t exist on the national level now.
Bullshit. Every gear manufacturer I have seen has wingloading requirements/suggestions for each of their canopies. If someone cannot read and comprehend what the manufacturer is advising them, the should not be jumping anything.
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
sducoach 0
Derek,
You and I agree on 99% of our thoughts however,
your comment about S&TA's counting for nothing is completely off the mark.
People seem to believe S&TA's are the "cops" of the DZ, not so. Safety and Training Advisors have many other obligations and being the DZ Cop is not listed as one.
Many of us work very hard to increase awareness and training of all skydivers. Please do not insult us based upon one specific, non-enforceable problem in our sport.
Sorry to complain to you brother however, you know the authority an S&TA has. Others should read the SIM to discover.
Blues and keep on keeping on,
J.E.
edited to add my comment on bsr's. They are not enforceable anyway without the DZO's agreement. Only FAR's are "enforcable" Nothing says "Basid Skydiving Regulations".
You and I agree on 99% of our thoughts however,
your comment about S&TA's counting for nothing is completely off the mark.
People seem to believe S&TA's are the "cops" of the DZ, not so. Safety and Training Advisors have many other obligations and being the DZ Cop is not listed as one.
Many of us work very hard to increase awareness and training of all skydivers. Please do not insult us based upon one specific, non-enforceable problem in our sport.
Sorry to complain to you brother however, you know the authority an S&TA has. Others should read the SIM to discover.
Blues and keep on keeping on,
J.E.
edited to add my comment on bsr's. They are not enforceable anyway without the DZO's agreement. Only FAR's are "enforcable" Nothing says "Basid Skydiving Regulations".
James 4:8
Excuse me for being rude, but I've been hearing that particular line for about two decades now.
They have little or no interest in us whatsoever as it's been my experience.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites