Blacklisting

[Fast 0]

In my limited experience opinion I think that the focus should not be on labling gear dealers as unsafe people. I think the focus should be on (like its been said) getting people to not want small canopys.

Sure it looks cool, is cool, etc... to swoop the pond/landing area/whatever... but if the encouragement from all the people on a DZ is that bigger is better when you don't have experience then people aren't going to be buying the small stuff.

There has to be people somewhere saying to new jumpers that its ok to jump high wingloadings at low jump numbers. More people need to step up and keep someone on the ground if they are not confident that the person is being safe. Making a list of people that sell small gear to underqualified jumpers isn't going to do much.


They are gonna get the canopy regardless, and then there was no reason to have blacklisted anyone.

The focus needs to be on education, and keeping people properly informed that they might kill themselves or others, or keeping them on the ground.

Thats just my take.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[jumpinjackflash 0]

Good point.

None of us are. No such thing. Every hop, is a potential disaster...

Nice metaphor for life though as far as I see it.

Nice tag line

jjf

I got me a rock-n-roll band it's a free for all...

It's a gas, gas, gas...

[jumpinjackflash 0]

Ok, read every post in here.

After reading everything.

I'm convinced.

You can't fix stupid.

By a Kleenex to jump under when your not qualified, trained, or experienced enough.

You'll die.

End of story.

Still pisses me off. After reading all the threads, looking at the complexities of implementing. Then implementing the rules doesn't result in better safety it results in others being held "liable" for DUMB ASS CHOICES? WHAT THE FUCK?

If SkyBytch sells me a fucking 130, and I lied to her and told her I had 500 jumps, IT'S HER FAULT THEN WHEN I EAT FUCKING DIRT CUZ SHE DIDN"T BLOOD TEST ME???? BULLSHIT. SCREW THAT.

There is no other way. Really, implementing those rules/regs open up just another way for other people to be blamed for outright fucking stupidity. Damn, thats what we need. More of that crap.

If your smart enough to complete AFF, or any other USPA training, test out for your A, and then you go and buy a freaking High perf chute after your 40th jump, well shit, does that make any sense at all? WHAT, EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD SHOULD WATCH OUT FOR YOU??? BUT YOU DON"T HAVE TO?

if you touch the stove, you'll get burned.


jjf

this shit makes me livid... stuff like that (lyin about your experience to get a dangerous fucking canopy) gets done by idiots, then everyone in the sport looks like a fucking idiot. bullshit.

It's a gas, gas, gas...

[skybytch 259]

Quote

If SkyBytch sells me a fucking 130, and I lied to her and told her I had 500 jumps, IT'S HER FAULT THEN WHEN I EAT FUCKING DIRT CUZ SHE DIDN"T BLOOD TEST ME???? BULLSHIT. SCREW THAT.

Tell that to the legal system.

Regardless of whether I was lied to or not, if I sell someone something that they later kill themselves with I'm not going to sleep well for awhile.

Personally, I think EVERY experienced jumper has an obligation to keep new jumpers off small and/or aggressive canopies. Until EVERY experienced jumper does so, people will keep dying.

I don't know how to make the above happen - not when AFF instructors routinely recommend wingloadings of 1.2 and above to people just off student status, not when there are "gear dealers" out there who don't seem to care, not when there are "experienced" jumpers telling people just off student status that they'll be "just fine" under a Stiletto.

Something has to change. Or we may very well find things changing without our consent.

How many mad mothers did it take to get drunk driving laws changed? Not many. . .

[jumpinjackflash 0]

I agree Lisa, and you are right. We should be responsible, not only for ourselves, but others as well.

The thing that tweaks me is, even so, you know some people just don't listen.

I think it's great that we need to get on top of this, I just seriously can't imagine being held liable for someone elses poor choices.

There probably should be some kind of rule implemented, and we should work diligently to make sure that careless shit just doesn't happen.

My only fear, is that it's use as a weapon in blaming others for bad behavior. I'm sure theres been cases where every intention was made to sell the canopy only to a qualified jumper, but in the end, some idiot still managed to jilt the system, and died as a result.

Should we string up the people that he fooled???


scary stuff


Jack

It's a gas, gas, gas...

[SkyPsycho 0]

Quote

My only fear, is that it's use as a weapon in blaming others for bad behavior. I'm sure theres been cases where every intention was made to sell the canopy only to a qualified jumper, but in the end, some idiot still managed to jilt the system, and died as a result.

Should we string up the people that he fooled???


scary stuff


Jack

people have been biffing in under canopies since skydiving started........its always happened, and it always will. theres never been any regulation on what someone can fly. all we can do is talk to people and try to get them not to do something foolish. most skydivers (me included here ) DO NOT like rules and regulations. right now, it would be pretty hard to have someone nail a dealer or person in a litigious way for them doing stoopit shit under something they shouldnt have been under that they purchased by misrepresentation of their abilities.

start making rules and regulations on this too, and youre opening yourself up to lawsuits.

please people, lets police our own and look out for each other. christ, i live in new jersey, the communist state where its illegal to have fun. i have enough rules, regulations, and laws to deal with already.

_______________________________
HK MP5SD.........silence is golden

[PhreeZone 15]

> Canopy type had nothing whatsoever to do with the accident. Ditto with Bruce.

I thought Bruce had a spinning line twisted Stiletto 135, at under 100 jumps. A less agressive canopy would have been less likely to spin and get the jumper into that type of situation at that low of overall experience and awareness.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

I don't know how to make the above happen - not when AFF instructors routinely recommend wingloadings of 1.2 and above to people just off student status, not when there are "gear dealers" out there who don't seem to care, not when there are "experienced" jumpers telling people just off student status that they'll be "just fine" under a Stiletto.

.

I was told that by my instructor, the DZO agreed, I was sold a new Stiletto by a very reputable dealer, I was "just fine", and still am.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

> Canopy type had nothing whatsoever to do with the accident. Ditto with Bruce.

I thought Bruce had a spinning line twisted Stiletto 135, at under 100 jumps. A less agressive canopy would have been less likely to spin and get the jumper into that type of situation at that low of overall experience and awareness.

Bruce failed to execute proper emergency procedures and cut away too low. The toxicology report showed drugs in his system. Blaming the canopy is a cop-out.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[darkvapor 0]

Quote

Then have the manufactures rate the canopies and the buyer must show proof (valid USPA card) with the canopy rating on it.

You want canopy manufacturers to rate their products objectively? Not going to happen. Someone like Atair will tell you that a HP elliptical at 1.4 is fine for a "beginner". While PD rates most of their canopies at intermediate for a 1.0 wingloading. If you try to use some kind of mathematical formula, thats not going to work. Not sure if you saw all the confusion around trying to measure the ellipticity of a canopy. You get some canopies that are regarded as moderate being rated higher than a Stilleto. And what manufacturer really wants to call their canopy advanced and lose all their sales to people who would otherwise buy them?

How about we try something that works?! How about TRAINING!? Start from the bottom up. Make the AFF program more canopy intensive. When I went thru AFF, my canopy instruction was primarily just being told "go play with it and see how it flies". Sure.. they told us about half brake turns, and different approaches. But thats about it. Let's fix the problem at the source instead of trying to impose restrictions until your blue in the face. Make a canopy control course mandatory before B or C license. (Would be more appropriate at a B now). And more importantly, make those courses available. I've seen some dropzones that haven't had one available for several years.

Like I said in another thread, there are two important things that have been said in other discussions, but not this one: 1) Know your own limitations and 2) even a canopy at 1:1 can kill you. First off, this is a self-regulated sport. We need to keep it that way. We don't need so many lawsuits and blacklists that we drive everything underground or out of business. What next? Background checks and 10 day waiting periods? We need education and self-responsibility. Not regulations and lawsuits.

[freeatlast 0]

I agree that training is one of the positive ways that we can help to reduce the statistics. Perhaps if more canopy courses were available and more people were encouraged to take one then things might improve. I certainly will take one if there is one available locally (otherwise I intend to travel to a DZ where I can take one once I've settled down after my trip).

Perhaps you could offer cheaper skydiving insurance to those people who complete an accredited course in the previous year and then maintain the cheaper insurance subject to them completing a (short) refresher/check out jump each year? Perhaps there could be a manufacturer led incentive scheme where higher performance canopies are slightly discounted to those who complete an approved course or hold a suitable rating???

These are obviously just ideas - but maybe someone clever could come up with something workable !!!

However you will always have the "I know better than everyone else" person who does something totally irresponsible who will continue to be as dangerous as ever despite the best efforts of the rest of us.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I was told that by my instructor, the DZO agreed, I was sold a new Stiletto by a very reputable dealer, I was "just fine", and still am.

Education makes a big difference. Not every dz teaches canopy control the way the one you learned at does.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Perhaps you could offer cheaper skydiving insurance

Skydiving insurance?!? Things like that are not available in the US - the only insurance we have is the USPA third party liability insurance and we'll be losing that soon.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

I was told that by my instructor, the DZO agreed, I was sold a new Stiletto by a very reputable dealer, I was "just fine", and still am.

Education makes a big difference. Not every dz teaches canopy control the way the one you learned at does.

And the obvious conclusion is.....?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

Got the October issue of Parachutist handy? Grab it and turn to page 10. Read the letter titled "Benefits of Blacklisting" from Jack Guthrie.

Jack has forgotten that we live in a Republic where each and every young adult is free to make certain decisions for themselves, and also take responsibility for those decisions too. For those who don't trust themselves there are agents, dealers, etc. that can help with their gear choices for a small additional charge. How about the parents?

Parents should be involved too. If my child was to take up the sport, I'd personally see to it that they had the best and appropriate gear that money could buy! All too often, the parents don't like the idea of their child in the sport, and they deal with it through denial and grief. Thus, an open dialog doesn't exist between child and parent. Following a tragedy these parents often discover many things that were previously unknown to them such as dire warnings from the DZO or friends, used gear in poor condition, or gear that is way beyond the performance envelope for their child's experience. Knowing that your child has the best gear available would also go a long way to ameliorate that buried fear too.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

And the obvious conclusion is.....?

I conclude a couple of things, either or both of which may be obvious to others.

1) Novices who get top quality canopy control training - and practice what they are taught on every jump - can likely handle a more aggressive canopy or wingloading when shit happens to them. Those who get "old school" canopy control training (or those who get state of the art training but don't practice the things they were taught) are less likely to be able to handle it when shit happens to them.

2) Until every student skydiver is getting top quality canopy control training and practicing what they were taught, not every novice jumper will be able to handle a more aggressive canopy type or wingloading when shit happens to them.

My opinion - until every dz out there is teaching the ISP (it ain't perfect but it's a start) and offering advanced canopy control training to every jumper, we all need to make an effort to keep higher wingloadings and more aggressive canopy types out of the hands of the majority of novice skydivers.

But I'm still at a loss as to how we accomplish this without "holding back" those who may be able to handle that higher wingloading or more aggressive canopy type when shit happens.

[dgskydive 0]

I am just throwing out ideas. The bottom line is that one day something is going to have to be done and we all will be voting on it sometime. So start thinking about what you may think would be a good plan. Please don't get us all started on Atair again. There was a brutal thread going about that. I think Dan got the point of what most people think of that type of marketing.

I agree with you about the lack of canopy skills that are taught. I learned through the static line system and we had to demonstrate our canopy skills before we could move on to free falls. It may have been frustrating for those who had trouble landing those big sale barges we learned on, but when they moved on they where ready for smaller canopies. Even then we had accidents like every other school. At least they took the time to teach the skills. That is why a suggest a canopy license. Maybe not the perfect idea but it least it is something.

Dom

[dgskydive 0]

But I'm still at a loss as to how we accomplish this without "holding back" those who may be able to handle that higher wingloading or more aggressive canopy type when shit happens
___________________________________________________________

Have em take a test! If you can do so many of "these" types of landings and so many of "this" type of landing on "this" type of canopy you are now cleared to jump the next level of canopy. Or maybe we could have a "Faces of Death" tyoe section in the first jump course that would show the aftermath of unqualified people on HP canopies. A kind of "Here's Johnny with 100 jumps on a 230!", "Now, here's Johnny with 150 jumps under a Velocity 90" DON'T be JOHNNY!

Dom





			
		

[sdgregory 0]

I am a newbie for sure. I just did my first 3 AFF's this past Sunday and will be doing 5,6&7 this Saturday, should the weather hold.

Here is my take, in today's society nobody wants to take responsibility for themselves. Especially in the U.S. of A. Everyone wants to blame somebody for what goes wrong. I agree with Rainbo, we all have to answer for our own actions.

Hey when it is all said and done we all know, "You do not have to Skydive. You do not have to sign the waiver. Skydiving is dangerous and Stupidity is deadly." It is truly up to the individual to take responsibility for their own actions. I know I am not jumping heavier than 1:1 for a very long time and I certainly watch you swoopers and am in AWE. I cannot wait till I can do that, but I will wait until those who know better tell me I am ready to try something new and even then it will be baby steps. If I buy a 1.7:1 canopy and then swoop in and land 6 feet below the earth's surface even after I was warned, well folks that is my fault. Not anyone elses and I will answer to God for my stupidity.

Sean (taking it easy, enjoying the process, loving the ride)

[Rainbo 0]

Someone agrees with me?!?

Well even if you are new that's ok with me. The ggod thing in my mind is that this thread took the right turn...training is the real answer. And young jumpers listening to the information is critical to their survival. Sometimes those of us that have been around awhile really know what we are talking about...our opinions do not always reflect the actions we take when diseminating skydiving information..they are after all just opinions.

Rainbo
do as i say not as i just did

Rainbo
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Someone agrees with me?!?

Yes, but he has inexperience as an excuse.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

A hypothetical question:

I jump a VX-60. I am also an AFF I/E. I think it is possible for me to convince a recently graduated student that my canopy is the canopy for them. "Hey, I'll coach you. You'll be fine, you are a natural." Then sell it to them. If (and when) they are seriously injured or killed under that canopy, should I shoulder any blame? They weren't a student anymore. They signed the waiver, they are an adult, right?

Would the, hypothetical, accident have happened under a more suitable beginner canopy? What does flying a too high of performance canopy do to the odds of a new jumper being injured or killed?

Finally, who's responsibility is it too keep a newer jumper from buying and flying a canopy that unacceptably increases their chances of being injured or killed under it?

Derek

[jsaxton 0]

Woah! Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that the canopy manufacturers submit themselves to USPA regulations? As far as I am aware they are only subject to FAA regulations at this point.

[dgskydive 0]

"Hey, I'll coach you. You'll be fine, you are a natural." Then sell it to them. If (and when) they are seriously injured or killed under that canopy should I shoulder any blame? They weren't a student anymore. They signed the waiver, they are an adult, right?
------------------------------------------------------------
Sure you should shoulder some blame. In this case it seems you would have INFLUENCED the newer jumper and put him on the road to death or serious injury.

------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, who's responsibility is it too keep a newer jumper from buying and flying a canopy that unacceptably increases their chances of being injured or killed under it
------------------------------------------------------------
That is what we are trying to figure out. I just don't think newer jumpers are smart enough (not all but most) to figure it out on there own. Some where we as a community are going to have to stand in and say enough is enough! You can't jump or buy this certain type of canopy! People are just not listening to the more experienced jumpers around them. Or some of the experienced jumpers that they are listening to aren't doing them any favors. I really think the decsion needs to be taken out of there hands. Take away the oppurtunity to lie about there experience to get the canopy they want by rating the canopies and making it a matter of being having the right rating to jump a certain canopy. I said it before in this thread you don't get to ride a motorcyle without an additional test on your DL. You can't go out and just drive a big rig with out the right qualifications. Why because it is not the same as driving a car. Smaller and faster for the bike, bigger and capable of more destruction with the big rig. So we have to demonstrat our ability to handle the additional risks before we can get behind the wheel of one of these different vehicles. When one of us dies from a free fall incident, it is bad enough in the public eye. When one of us dies because they wherer flying a canopy they weren't ready for it just makes them look stupid and hurts our sport even more. I really don't care if you kill yourself! I care that it hurts the rest of us in the long run. It hurts our sport! Shouldn't we do whatever we can to protect it and keep the idiots on a leash?

Dom

[dgskydive 0]

I am suggesting that something be done! I don;t know the answers. I am open to anything that will keep idiots from killing themselves in our sport. The manufactures may be only responsible to the FAA, but it may do us all good if they limitied sales of certain canopies to qualified people only. The only way I can see to make sure the people are qualified is to get the USPA to do something. It is obvious that new jumpers can't always rely on "experienced" jumpers to point them in the right direction.

Dom