Steel 0 #76 July 11, 2003 A license - 1 psf max ---------------------------------------- that I think is fine. --------------------- B license - 1.1 psf max C license - 1.3 psf max ----------------------------------------- I think probably 50% of the people would get screwed by this because they could handle more. ---------------------- D license - no limit ------------------------------------------ I like this except that just as is always the case with gun control, I don't believe it will stop there. I believe it will just be a stepping stone toward eventually telling people like myself, with thousands of jumps, what they should or shouldn't be allowed to fly. That I am extremely opposed to. -If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JDBoston 0 #77 July 11, 2003 I think most people don't find out for sure where they are on the skill curve until they fuck up somehow, put themselves in a scary situation, and either land safely or don't. Which means that erring on the side of making people walk before they can run is probably wise. Skydivers especially tend to be overconfident more often than underconfident. There will always be people who don't like rules. Tough shit. The sport is what we need to preserve, not the extra 5% of someone's enjoyment. I would prefer watching someone sulk and pout for a while to visiting them in the hospital. In my opinion the Darwin comments do not have a logical basis. I don't see anyone advocating doing away with license requirements or PRO prerequisites or the FJC. I get the feeling that people are just concerned about one rule that they think will rain on their personal parade right now, and then try to extend it and make it look like a whole freedom of choice philosophy instead of just sour grapes. Maybe someone who's against wingloading BSRs can address the hypothetical question of why it's OK to have experience limits and performance prerequisites to jump demos (one or more PRE-PLANNED challenging situations), but not to jump a canopy that is a potentially challenging situation EVERY TIME you jump it, if external conditions and luck turn a little bit against you. Maybe some people out there think PRO prerequisites are an unnecessary pain in the ass too? One other thing I'd be curious about, on a bit of a tangent - people that get hurt, what % of their previous landings on that canopy were standups? Not butt-slide and pop back up - standups. Do other people think that's a valid indicator of skill? My $0.02, Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #78 July 11, 2003 QuoteMaybe someone who's against wingloading BSRs can address the hypothetical question of why it's OK to have experience limits and performance prerequisites to jump demos (one or more PRE-PLANNED challenging situations), but not to jump a canopy that is a potentially challenging situation EVERY TIME you jump it, if external conditions and luck turn a little bit against you. Maybe some people out there think PRO prerequisites are an unnecessary pain in the ass too? simple. Assumption of risk. At a Demo there are possibly 1000's who have not signed a waiver, have not agreed to participate in a high risk sport, and have no clue of the number of ways in which something could go wrong and injure or kill them due to no fault of their own. Everyone on a DZ is, even the spectators, who have chosen to be at a place where such activities are taking place and usually have plenty of warning signs (and some scars in places) that tell you this is DANGEROUS the canopy pilot in particular should be well aware they might die if they screw up under a high loaded canopy. They make the choice to assume that risk.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #79 July 11, 2003 QuoteMaybe someone who's against wingloading BSRs can address the hypothetical question of why it's OK to have experience limits and performance prerequisites to jump demos (one or more PRE-PLANNED challenging situations)] I think anyone can answer that one, not just thosed opposed to wingloading BSR's ,Quote but not to jump a canopy that is a potentially challenging situation EVERY TIME you jump it, if external conditions and luck turn a little bit against you. Can you define the hypothetical canopy? I would say this applies to all canopies every jump. If external conditions, (as in weather) turn against me I pray I am not under an underloaded canopy. J That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JDBoston 0 #80 July 11, 2003 I see your point, but how about people sitting in their yard a mile away from the DZ who get to watch someone cratering in in front of them trying to land off in a tight spot for the first time? And I would disagree that the crowds of spectators at most DZs are EVER told that they might see someone get hurt that day, or be put in danger themselves. Little plastic signs aren't the same as waivers. Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JDBoston 0 #81 July 11, 2003 Anyone can write the response, but I am most interested in how people hold those two (to me, apparently opposing) viewpoints simultaneously. Every canopy ride is indeed risky, but not EQUALLY risky. How about defining the canopy as something loaded at 1.5 flown by someone (the pilot is obviously a factor here too) who has 100 jumps total and 20 on it. And then someone suddenly cuts him off in the pattern below 100'. How much do you want to bet his landing is not very pretty? If he's at 1:1, it may still not be pretty but maybe it's the difference between a dirty jumpsuit and the heavy metal club. Also, I would not be nearly as afraid of an underloaded canopy as an overloaded one. You shouldn't be jumping if you are close to backing up under the current winds. If you aren't backing up, you can land out someplace. If there are no good outs, again, maybe you shouldn't be there, at that time, under that canopy. If the winds kick up 10 mph while you're in the plane, well, shit does happen, but that hasn't happened very often in the 3 years I've been around. Maybe it's more likely in some climates than others. Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #82 July 11, 2003 QuoteIf the winds kick up 10 mph while you're in the plane, well, shit does happen, but that hasn't happened very often in the 3 years I've been around. Maybe it's more likely in some climates than others. I have seen it happen a bit on hot summer days in the midwest. I just missed a cessna load(not packed) one clear day and the pilot called on jump run to ask if everything was ok outside. I notified her that the winds had switched 180 put were still very light. "Jumper Away"........ Just as the canopies were opening the wind picked up over 40 MPH. Both jumpers landed uninjured but I had never seen anything like it at that time. Flying backwards at 25 MPH and when one of then had to turn and run... Holy shit. Then it was over as quick as it came. I am still bummed I missed that load. J That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JDBoston 0 #83 July 11, 2003 Fair enough... now I know where NOT to jump Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #84 July 11, 2003 QuoteAnd I would disagree that the crowds of spectators at most DZs are EVER told that they might see someone get hurt that day, or be put in danger themselves. Little plastic signs aren't the same as waivers. the signs at Eloy are not little, nor are they plastic. Every dropzone i've been to has something similar although perhaps not as obvious. 'Enter at your own risk', means exactly that. Teaching adults to read and understand is far beyond the requirements of a DZ. It would be unfortunate to require waivers simply for the folks who want to come out and watch, but our litigious society, the 'waiting to be offended/appalled' crowd and the increased reliance on rules and regulations in place of personal responsibility are leading that direction____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JDBoston 0 #85 July 11, 2003 I don't think they should need waivers either. But that's partly because I also think we as a community can do a lot more to reduce the number of incidents they're likely to see that day. I'm a huge fan of personal responsibility and accountability. But I include in that category the responsibility of people who know better to look out for people who don't, even if they create some hard feelings by doing so. Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #86 July 12, 2003 >But limits the maneuvers he is allowed to perform under the loading. That would work as well as making fatalities illegal. Jumpers are getting killed often because they're making panic turns they cannot pull off; telling them they are not allowed to do that will do nothing since they were not planning on making a low turn to begin with. >Make him do 50 jumps in double fronts if he wants to start swooping. I don't know what that means. "Make him?" Does that mean ground him if he doesn't do that? Gently suggest he do it, but if he doesn't want to that's OK? Pass a BSR? >Make a canopy pilot try and learn to swoop on a canopy with a short recovery arc. Again, that "make" thing, which is the hard part. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldnewbie 0 #87 July 12, 2003 Does one need to be walking across the street and be run over by a car before he/she knows that they don't want this to happen because it hurts??? P.S. I agree with some form of w/l guidelines, but I don't agree that I have to hear and see somebody hit the ground!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,380 #88 July 12, 2003 > Where does it state in the FAR's . . . that an S&TA can ground anyone! FAR's? You mean the SIM? Nowhere that I know of (but I don't have a SIM here.) They can official revoke a JM's rating for 30 days on their word, but their only power to ground people comes in cooperation with the DZO. I've grounded people, and Buzz backed me up. Result - that person could not manifest at Otay. Perris backs up our groundings, so if we get word to them, it works (at least it worked) there as well. >How many posts on this subject are you going to birth? I think that's about it. I did it primarily to get feedback on the various proposals. (both for me and for the other readers of these threads, like Jan Meyer.) And I did get a lot of feedback, which is good - but often the thread degenerates into two people trying to "win" their argument, which is too bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #89 July 12, 2003 QuoteThat would work as well as making fatalities illegal. Jumpers are getting killed often because they're making panic turns they cannot pull off; telling them they are not allowed to do that will do nothing since they were not planning on making a low turn to begin with. Saying limit the maneuvers is where high performance landings are concerned. QuoteI don't know what that means. "Make him?" Does that mean ground him if he doesn't do that? Gently suggest he do it, but if he doesn't want to that's OK? Pass a BSR? It means ground him if him as a new swooper does a 180 snap hook before he has demonstrated a 90 carve. This is concerning high performance landings. QuoteMake a canopy pilot try and learn to swoop on a canopy with a short recovery arc. Again, that "make" thing, which is the hard part. I don't believe you got the whole sentence? Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,380 #90 July 12, 2003 >I think probably 50% of the people would get screwed by this because they could handle more. How would they get screwed? Under this proposal it's a recommendation only. If the S+TA wants to enforce it he can, but it's not a requirement. Surely a recommendation to jump a light wingloading until you get canopy training or enough experience doesn't "screw" anyone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #91 July 12, 2003 To the risk-averse, driving cautiously is easily justified without experience, just as is conservative canopy flight. Your experience-as-proof argument as-is has nothing to do with canopy sizes--you could plant such a statement in any debate and it would be just as fallacious as it is here. Experience alone isn't proof, although experience may lead to the knowledge that drives the proof. If experience has led to knowledge that justifies these proposals, by all means explain how! There should be no secrets here. Conclusions drawn on experience without the benefit of knowledge and logic are indistinguishable from superstition. The last thing we need in this sport is more superstition*. Which is not to say that all superstitions are necessarily false... edit to add: If experience has given us a hunch, then let us derive the knowledge that gives us proof. nathaniel * eg, 45-degree exit separation rule, several of the roll-this roll-that tweaks to canopy folding, people buttsliding in instead of PLF, some of the RSL and AAD pro/con arguments etc.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #92 July 12, 2003 Once again you are showing your lack of experience in the sport. Why argue with people that have 10 X your jumps? You look foolish doing that."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 Ron 7 #93 July 12, 2003 Im done with you on this..... If you wish to bicker more PM me."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 parachutist 1 #94 July 12, 2003 QuoteOnce again you are showing your lack of experience in the sport. Why argue with people that have 10 X your jumps? You look foolish doing that. Nathaniel is being logical here, not foolish. He's pointing out the fact that you should be providing data to back up your claims. Jumpers with 10x Nathaniel's experience have pounded in hard.... recently. The numbers don't mean wisdom and he's right to look for more evidence than "I have more jumps than you". Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #95 July 12, 2003 QuoteOnce again you are showing your lack of experience in the sport. Why argue with people that have 10 X your jumps? There you go thinking you are the man because you have jump numbers. Jump numbers mean nothing. Your skygod attitude is one of the things that I do not like about this sport. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites VectorBoy 0 #96 July 13, 2003 QuoteOnce again you are showing your lack of experience in the sport. Why argue with people that have 10 X your jumps? _________________________________________________ I'll tell you why Ron, When you guys tell me about a jumper with 39 jumps loaded at 2:1, or tell me that everybody that gets tweaked landing a canopy was a) swooping it in b) overloaded without the experience. c) A young male on testosterone poisoning. d) could have easily avoided the accident with more experience or a canopy control class for which there is NO infrastructure at every uspa dropzone, currently or in the future, unless you guys are going to take yourselves on a summer roadshow to promote safe canopy skills coming to a DZ near you. ( as if this is some guarantee ) It tend to think 1. you are over reacting. 2. tend to oversimplify things, black or white. 3. And feel free, because of passion or emotion or whatever , to way over exaggerate the truth, current events or incidents. EXAMPLE This last event at Perris, I haven't even SEEN this gentleman in SIX months but I knew Bills post was way off on the facts! Smells like? coughing noise! And come on, for crying out loud. Anybody pulling off a loading of 2:1 @ jump 39. I know I would take this person and pick their brain: How are you doing it? Wanna teach a class, or me? You wouldn't? NO you wouldn't you already know EVERYTHING about flying at 2:1. You look foolish doing that. Yes you do PUTA, yes you do! All I know is this "it" does not exist, What does exist is lack of canopy ability at many levels, lack of canopy knowledge at most levels and the propagation of many canopy untruths just about anywhere. AND absolute no provision for a coarse for people to take readily except for a few DZs a limmited months of the year! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites VectorBoy 0 #97 July 13, 2003 And not to take away or make you guys into evil or malicious skydivers cuz you are not. I have met Derek and don't think he is, or for that matter BILL or RON, any of you are acting on anything other than making the skys above our dropzones safer in some way. I just don't believe you will be taken seriously with if you don't state the facts, only the facts. Anybody that has been around a while will say we have a problem, It must be so, I tend to agree. Remember before Radical canopys were out and guys were doing that thing were you hang upside down ( like spiderman) in your harness, feet up in your lines right up until 50 feet or flare time? I heard some of GK's did this and have seen some others do this. Well surely there must have been a better understanding of canopy flight back then, say 10 years ago. It should not be that hard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sducoach 0 #98 July 13, 2003 Quote FAR's? You mean the SIM? Nowhere that I know of (but I don't have a SIM here.) They can official revoke a JM's rating for 30 days on their word, but their only power to ground people comes in cooperation with the DZO. I've grounded people, and Buzz backed me up. Result - that person could not manifest at Otay. Perris backs up our groundings, so if we get word to them, it works (at least it worked) there as well. Bingo! You win! No Bill, I don't mean the SIM. I mean the FAR's. That is the only area where the "authority" for any form of violation or grounding can be found concerning skydiving/aviation operations. Skydivers Information Manual which was copied off the AIM, Airmans Information Manual format, does not give the "authority" to do anything such as grounding someone. An S&TA can suspend for 30 days pending a review by the RD & BOD but,,,,,, only the DZO can ground anyone! I guess they might miss their copy of Parachutist that month if you suspend them. I don't believe you can "revoke" anything. That means to annul by taking it away, all an S&TA can do is suspend the authority of the rating for the 30 days. If it were revoked the rating holder would have to prove/test competency to get it back. Suspension, after 30 days with no action by anyone, you are good to go again. Quote I think that's about it. I did it primarily to get feedback on the various proposals. (both for me and for the other readers of these threads, like Jan Meyer.) And I did get a lot of feedback, which is good - but often the thread degenerates into two people trying to "win" their argument, which is too bad. Thank you, thank you, thank you. You too Jan, I did not know you and Bill were working together here. Bill, Glad you got your feedback. What's next? You buy the beer? Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sducoach 0 #99 July 13, 2003 Bill you are a "moderator" don't stoop to partial quotes to try and win your argument. Go back to the last post I sent you and don't "paraphrase" a quote and post the whole thing. *** Bill, I've asked this question before and you did not answer so I'll try again. Where does it state in the FAR's, (in as much that BSR's and SIM's cannot be enforced anyway without the BOD doing it, and at that they can only revoke any license, rating, or membership you may hold) that an S&TA can ground anyone! I like what you are attempting to do but man, you are pushing the rope against a 500# gorilla. The difference is the gorilla has teeth. *** Sneaky little devil, aren't you......... Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Iflyme 0 #100 July 13, 2003 Quotestart blaming the canopy pilots themselves. Regulations ae put in place to stop people from harming/killing themselves and others. You can't do much to a canopy pilot who is dead. You have to have a system in place to PREVENT canopy pilots from getting themselves in trouble. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 4 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 2,380 #88 July 12, 2003 > Where does it state in the FAR's . . . that an S&TA can ground anyone! FAR's? You mean the SIM? Nowhere that I know of (but I don't have a SIM here.) They can official revoke a JM's rating for 30 days on their word, but their only power to ground people comes in cooperation with the DZO. I've grounded people, and Buzz backed me up. Result - that person could not manifest at Otay. Perris backs up our groundings, so if we get word to them, it works (at least it worked) there as well. >How many posts on this subject are you going to birth? I think that's about it. I did it primarily to get feedback on the various proposals. (both for me and for the other readers of these threads, like Jan Meyer.) And I did get a lot of feedback, which is good - but often the thread degenerates into two people trying to "win" their argument, which is too bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #89 July 12, 2003 QuoteThat would work as well as making fatalities illegal. Jumpers are getting killed often because they're making panic turns they cannot pull off; telling them they are not allowed to do that will do nothing since they were not planning on making a low turn to begin with. Saying limit the maneuvers is where high performance landings are concerned. QuoteI don't know what that means. "Make him?" Does that mean ground him if he doesn't do that? Gently suggest he do it, but if he doesn't want to that's OK? Pass a BSR? It means ground him if him as a new swooper does a 180 snap hook before he has demonstrated a 90 carve. This is concerning high performance landings. QuoteMake a canopy pilot try and learn to swoop on a canopy with a short recovery arc. Again, that "make" thing, which is the hard part. I don't believe you got the whole sentence? Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #90 July 12, 2003 >I think probably 50% of the people would get screwed by this because they could handle more. How would they get screwed? Under this proposal it's a recommendation only. If the S+TA wants to enforce it he can, but it's not a requirement. Surely a recommendation to jump a light wingloading until you get canopy training or enough experience doesn't "screw" anyone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #91 July 12, 2003 To the risk-averse, driving cautiously is easily justified without experience, just as is conservative canopy flight. Your experience-as-proof argument as-is has nothing to do with canopy sizes--you could plant such a statement in any debate and it would be just as fallacious as it is here. Experience alone isn't proof, although experience may lead to the knowledge that drives the proof. If experience has led to knowledge that justifies these proposals, by all means explain how! There should be no secrets here. Conclusions drawn on experience without the benefit of knowledge and logic are indistinguishable from superstition. The last thing we need in this sport is more superstition*. Which is not to say that all superstitions are necessarily false... edit to add: If experience has given us a hunch, then let us derive the knowledge that gives us proof. nathaniel * eg, 45-degree exit separation rule, several of the roll-this roll-that tweaks to canopy folding, people buttsliding in instead of PLF, some of the RSL and AAD pro/con arguments etc.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #92 July 12, 2003 Once again you are showing your lack of experience in the sport. Why argue with people that have 10 X your jumps? You look foolish doing that."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
Ron 7 #93 July 12, 2003 Im done with you on this..... If you wish to bicker more PM me."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
parachutist 1 #94 July 12, 2003 QuoteOnce again you are showing your lack of experience in the sport. Why argue with people that have 10 X your jumps? You look foolish doing that. Nathaniel is being logical here, not foolish. He's pointing out the fact that you should be providing data to back up your claims. Jumpers with 10x Nathaniel's experience have pounded in hard.... recently. The numbers don't mean wisdom and he's right to look for more evidence than "I have more jumps than you". Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #95 July 12, 2003 QuoteOnce again you are showing your lack of experience in the sport. Why argue with people that have 10 X your jumps? There you go thinking you are the man because you have jump numbers. Jump numbers mean nothing. Your skygod attitude is one of the things that I do not like about this sport. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #96 July 13, 2003 QuoteOnce again you are showing your lack of experience in the sport. Why argue with people that have 10 X your jumps? _________________________________________________ I'll tell you why Ron, When you guys tell me about a jumper with 39 jumps loaded at 2:1, or tell me that everybody that gets tweaked landing a canopy was a) swooping it in b) overloaded without the experience. c) A young male on testosterone poisoning. d) could have easily avoided the accident with more experience or a canopy control class for which there is NO infrastructure at every uspa dropzone, currently or in the future, unless you guys are going to take yourselves on a summer roadshow to promote safe canopy skills coming to a DZ near you. ( as if this is some guarantee ) It tend to think 1. you are over reacting. 2. tend to oversimplify things, black or white. 3. And feel free, because of passion or emotion or whatever , to way over exaggerate the truth, current events or incidents. EXAMPLE This last event at Perris, I haven't even SEEN this gentleman in SIX months but I knew Bills post was way off on the facts! Smells like? coughing noise! And come on, for crying out loud. Anybody pulling off a loading of 2:1 @ jump 39. I know I would take this person and pick their brain: How are you doing it? Wanna teach a class, or me? You wouldn't? NO you wouldn't you already know EVERYTHING about flying at 2:1. You look foolish doing that. Yes you do PUTA, yes you do! All I know is this "it" does not exist, What does exist is lack of canopy ability at many levels, lack of canopy knowledge at most levels and the propagation of many canopy untruths just about anywhere. AND absolute no provision for a coarse for people to take readily except for a few DZs a limmited months of the year! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #97 July 13, 2003 And not to take away or make you guys into evil or malicious skydivers cuz you are not. I have met Derek and don't think he is, or for that matter BILL or RON, any of you are acting on anything other than making the skys above our dropzones safer in some way. I just don't believe you will be taken seriously with if you don't state the facts, only the facts. Anybody that has been around a while will say we have a problem, It must be so, I tend to agree. Remember before Radical canopys were out and guys were doing that thing were you hang upside down ( like spiderman) in your harness, feet up in your lines right up until 50 feet or flare time? I heard some of GK's did this and have seen some others do this. Well surely there must have been a better understanding of canopy flight back then, say 10 years ago. It should not be that hard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #98 July 13, 2003 Quote FAR's? You mean the SIM? Nowhere that I know of (but I don't have a SIM here.) They can official revoke a JM's rating for 30 days on their word, but their only power to ground people comes in cooperation with the DZO. I've grounded people, and Buzz backed me up. Result - that person could not manifest at Otay. Perris backs up our groundings, so if we get word to them, it works (at least it worked) there as well. Bingo! You win! No Bill, I don't mean the SIM. I mean the FAR's. That is the only area where the "authority" for any form of violation or grounding can be found concerning skydiving/aviation operations. Skydivers Information Manual which was copied off the AIM, Airmans Information Manual format, does not give the "authority" to do anything such as grounding someone. An S&TA can suspend for 30 days pending a review by the RD & BOD but,,,,,, only the DZO can ground anyone! I guess they might miss their copy of Parachutist that month if you suspend them. I don't believe you can "revoke" anything. That means to annul by taking it away, all an S&TA can do is suspend the authority of the rating for the 30 days. If it were revoked the rating holder would have to prove/test competency to get it back. Suspension, after 30 days with no action by anyone, you are good to go again. Quote I think that's about it. I did it primarily to get feedback on the various proposals. (both for me and for the other readers of these threads, like Jan Meyer.) And I did get a lot of feedback, which is good - but often the thread degenerates into two people trying to "win" their argument, which is too bad. Thank you, thank you, thank you. You too Jan, I did not know you and Bill were working together here. Bill, Glad you got your feedback. What's next? You buy the beer? Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #99 July 13, 2003 Bill you are a "moderator" don't stoop to partial quotes to try and win your argument. Go back to the last post I sent you and don't "paraphrase" a quote and post the whole thing. *** Bill, I've asked this question before and you did not answer so I'll try again. Where does it state in the FAR's, (in as much that BSR's and SIM's cannot be enforced anyway without the BOD doing it, and at that they can only revoke any license, rating, or membership you may hold) that an S&TA can ground anyone! I like what you are attempting to do but man, you are pushing the rope against a 500# gorilla. The difference is the gorilla has teeth. *** Sneaky little devil, aren't you......... Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #100 July 13, 2003 Quotestart blaming the canopy pilots themselves. Regulations ae put in place to stop people from harming/killing themselves and others. You can't do much to a canopy pilot who is dead. You have to have a system in place to PREVENT canopy pilots from getting themselves in trouble. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)