Kris 0
Recommended Posts
Ducky 0
As always I have an opinion....
Sounds about like a gun control debate to me. I say a WL BSR should go the same place as a control bill; Up somebody's ass!
kwak
Sounds about like a gun control debate to me. I say a WL BSR should go the same place as a control bill; Up somebody's ass!
kwak
Sometimes your the bug, sometimes your the windshield. Sometimes your the hammer sometimes your the nail. Question is Hun, Do you wanna get hammered or do you wanna get nailed?????
billvon 2,453
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>hrm...but it is not canopy size in question, it is WL.
Yep. Every DZ out there asks your weight so they can safely load the plane; it's right there on the form. And just about every jumper out there can tell if you're claiming to be 150 but are really 200 lbs.
>do they have to check my belly every time I jump?
Nope, just like they don't check now on every jump, even though overloading the plane could kill you. They trust jumpers to not lie, and rely on the fact that most people don't radically change their weight.
Yep. Every DZ out there asks your weight so they can safely load the plane; it's right there on the form. And just about every jumper out there can tell if you're claiming to be 150 but are really 200 lbs.
>do they have to check my belly every time I jump?
Nope, just like they don't check now on every jump, even though overloading the plane could kill you. They trust jumpers to not lie, and rely on the fact that most people don't radically change their weight.
billvon 2,453
> 50 jumps @ 2:1 come on people I've never heard of this, not even in rumor not ever.
>Open letter to all gear dealers, does this person this menace exist?
Ask Lisa Briggs. A few weeks ago a jumper with 39 jumps tried to buy a Stiletto 97 from her. They are the future of the sport - unless we can somehow change that course.
>Open letter to all gear dealers, does this person this menace exist?
Ask Lisa Briggs. A few weeks ago a jumper with 39 jumps tried to buy a Stiletto 97 from her. They are the future of the sport - unless we can somehow change that course.
quade 3
Jan --
I've been out of touch for a few days but coming back I see this and I'm thinking to myself that it's probably one of the more reasonable thoughts on the subject
You're right a BSR probably would have a very difficult time getting passed.
I -do- like your idea of some guidance in the SIM, but I fear that some people here and elseware are and would be confused as to the difference between the two.
I've been out of touch for a few days but coming back I see this and I'm thinking to myself that it's probably one of the more reasonable thoughts on the subject
You're right a BSR probably would have a very difficult time getting passed.
I -do- like your idea of some guidance in the SIM, but I fear that some people here and elseware are and would be confused as to the difference between the two.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
QuoteQuote50 jumps loaded at 2:1- does this truelly exist or are all the sabre rattlers creating some hypothetical phantom menace to put the scare into everbody to react into voting some BSR that won't really address the real " issue".
50 jumps @ 2:1 come on people I've never heard of this, not even in rumor not ever.
People definitely try.
This sole example is rolled out like the kid in the wheelchair at the jerry lewis telethon or the effigy (spell?) in the middle of march for jihad.
And of course it could very well have been a telephonic troll to aggravate the resident canopy nazi. Or just someone who really needs a canopy education and hopefully got some advice on gear.
But I want to know about guys in the field currently flying this extreme gear choice NOT the spectre of or rumor of or unreasonable fear of the possibility of maybe that this could be.
I WANT TO KNOW DOES THIS HAPPEN: proove it!
We all know canopys can snivel for 1200 feet- NOT!
Check video, now I'm supposed to write my USPA for some proposed changes about something that as far as I'm concerned does not exist, the actual fatality numbers don't say this exists. If you think it does CHECK VIDEO. Show me the video , I'll buy the beer.
kallend 1,660
USPA's requirements for the B, C and D licenses need to be overhauled.
The new ISP and "A" requirements have only started the process.
The increase in jump numbers for C and D are just fiddling around the edges.
A WL BSR is the wrong fix.
Skydiving has changed dramatically over the last 20 years, and the licenses should adapt to those changes.
The new ISP and "A" requirements have only started the process.
The increase in jump numbers for C and D are just fiddling around the edges.
A WL BSR is the wrong fix.
Skydiving has changed dramatically over the last 20 years, and the licenses should adapt to those changes.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
skybytch 259
QuoteOpen letter to all gear dealers, does this person this menace exist?
A couple of months ago I had a very insistent fellow with 30 jumps wanting to buy the smallest Stiletto possible. He would have loaded it at 1.9. He said someone on his dz already let him jump a 98 so it was okay.
He wasn't the first person I've talked to with less than 100 jumps who wanted to go real small.
It happens. We aren't lying about it.
billvon 2,453
>But I want to know about guys in the field currently flying this
>extreme gear choice NOT the spectre of or rumor of or unreasonable
>Fear of the possibility of maybe that this could be.
ok, three examples from our DZ. I'll call them Larry, Curly and Moe.
Larry, Curly and Moe all got fairly aggressive HP canopies - 1.7 to 1 Stilettos and a 1.8 to 1 Sabre. They had around 200 jumps. Larry would come into the landing area yelling "Get out of my way!" because he couldn't control where he landed. He once knocked over the Airspeed 8-way team while they were doing a door jam. His excuse? They shouldn't have been near the mockup when people were landing.
I talked to them. At my home DZ they carefully avoided me since I was an S+TA and could ground them. I talked to Larry again in Arizona, where I was told "you can't do anything to me here! You're not an S+TA here!"
About half a dozen other people talked to him while he was there. He had a list of excuses and reasons why his canopy was just fine. Why couldn't everyone just leave him alone? Why can't everyone see that he's a fine canopy pilot, people (and bushes) just get in his way sometimes?
Larry broke his thumb while we were there. It wasn't enough. A few months later he broke his femur - that was enough. He upsized.
Curly broke his pelvis and back. He will never walk normally again.
Moe just disappeared. He was pretty spooked by the other two injuries; no one's seen him since.
> If you think it does CHECK VIDEO. Show me the video , I'll buy the beer.
Unfortunately, most jumpers do not pre-declare their fatalities.
I am not suprised that many people are shocked and disbelieving when they find out what people are _really_ jumping. 1.5 to 1 at 100 jumps is not even unusual any more - that's a Spectre 150 on a 190 pound guy, and a Spectre 150 is considered a 'relatively safe' parachute. 1.8 to 1 at 100 jumps currently requires you to talk fast, but many skydivers are very good at talking. Unfortunately, talking a good game doesn't translate to being able to save your own life.
That's the primary reasoning behind my proposal. Anyone should be able to jump whatever they want, as long as they either take a canopy control course or simply find an S+TA to agree that they can do it. Taking either of those two steps first will, I believe, cut down on 90% of the problems we're seeing today.
>extreme gear choice NOT the spectre of or rumor of or unreasonable
>Fear of the possibility of maybe that this could be.
ok, three examples from our DZ. I'll call them Larry, Curly and Moe.
Larry, Curly and Moe all got fairly aggressive HP canopies - 1.7 to 1 Stilettos and a 1.8 to 1 Sabre. They had around 200 jumps. Larry would come into the landing area yelling "Get out of my way!" because he couldn't control where he landed. He once knocked over the Airspeed 8-way team while they were doing a door jam. His excuse? They shouldn't have been near the mockup when people were landing.
I talked to them. At my home DZ they carefully avoided me since I was an S+TA and could ground them. I talked to Larry again in Arizona, where I was told "you can't do anything to me here! You're not an S+TA here!"
About half a dozen other people talked to him while he was there. He had a list of excuses and reasons why his canopy was just fine. Why couldn't everyone just leave him alone? Why can't everyone see that he's a fine canopy pilot, people (and bushes) just get in his way sometimes?
Larry broke his thumb while we were there. It wasn't enough. A few months later he broke his femur - that was enough. He upsized.
Curly broke his pelvis and back. He will never walk normally again.
Moe just disappeared. He was pretty spooked by the other two injuries; no one's seen him since.
> If you think it does CHECK VIDEO. Show me the video , I'll buy the beer.
Unfortunately, most jumpers do not pre-declare their fatalities.
I am not suprised that many people are shocked and disbelieving when they find out what people are _really_ jumping. 1.5 to 1 at 100 jumps is not even unusual any more - that's a Spectre 150 on a 190 pound guy, and a Spectre 150 is considered a 'relatively safe' parachute. 1.8 to 1 at 100 jumps currently requires you to talk fast, but many skydivers are very good at talking. Unfortunately, talking a good game doesn't translate to being able to save your own life.
That's the primary reasoning behind my proposal. Anyone should be able to jump whatever they want, as long as they either take a canopy control course or simply find an S+TA to agree that they can do it. Taking either of those two steps first will, I believe, cut down on 90% of the problems we're seeing today.
Ron 7
I'll bite.
So are pull altitudes...How do you know I was above 2,000 feet?
How about if I pull low? Its against the BSR's.
And not all parachutes open the same....Do I need a min pull altitude for every make of canopy at each license level?
S&TA: "Lets see, you have a "D" with a Sabre...You can pull at 1,800 feet"..."Now you have a "D" with a Stiletto....You have to pull at 2,400 feet".
Same thing right?
Yes, it does work if *they do it*....We have read several times that people don't think they need it, or that they don't take it because it is uncool. It is due to the people that don't think they need it that a BSR would work, where a SIM entry will not. The guys that don't think they need the classes are not very likley to be reading the SIM.
Not last year...And as the canopies become more available to the less experienced jumpes...they will get them, and the incidents of low timers with high WL will increase...The trend over the last few years show that more of the deaths are low timers every year over the prior year.
So because it would be hard...It is best not to try?
I understand what you are saying.
However, the people that need to have this info...will not go looking for it in the SIM. If they knew that they didn't know, they would take the class or get coaching.
Case in point..I never looked into the SIM till I started teaching
A BSR would give them more than a guide they can blow off..(Which is all a SIM addition would be). A BSR would make them follow it, or they could prove they have "The right stuff" and pass a test, or so impress the S&TA that they can carry on.
If a SIM addition is the best we can do...well I personally think it is way short of anything that we are trying to do...And it shows the USPA has serious issues about being more than a cool magazine, and having a bunch of guys to lobby in DC, and build a museum that most don't even want. Having said that if it truely is the best the USPA can do....I can't MAKE anything else happen.
Ron
QuoteA WL BSR will not work for a number of reasons:
1. It is nearly impossible to enforce. A jumper can borrow a rig or just the canopy & defeat the BSR. Of
course, if there are WL cops at the boarding that may be different. Reality Check: No DZ is going to pop
open a customer's container just to check the canopy on the ramp.
So are pull altitudes...How do you know I was above 2,000 feet?
Quote2. DZOs will object to it because of the liability problem it introduces. If some jumper jumps a WL that is
against a proposed WL Limit BSR and then causes property or personal damage - the USPA insurance will NOT
pay off as the jump was made in violation of the BSRs. See #1 above.
How about if I pull low? Its against the BSR's.
Quote3. WL Limits do not scale with jumper weight. Two people under the same WL of the same make and model
parachute will have different performance characteristics. The greater the disparity in the two jumper's
weights the greater the difference in performance. A WL limit does not do what you think it does for
everyone in a consistent manner.
And not all parachutes open the same....Do I need a min pull altitude for every make of canopy at each license level?
S&TA: "Lets see, you have a "D" with a Sabre...You can pull at 1,800 feet"..."Now you have a "D" with a Stiletto....You have to pull at 2,400 feet".
Same thing right?
Quote4. People that do receive proper education can and do progress to smaller canopies in a safe manner.
Education does work.
Yes, it does work if *they do it*....We have read several times that people don't think they need it, or that they don't take it because it is uncool. It is due to the people that don't think they need it that a BSR would work, where a SIM entry will not. The guys that don't think they need the classes are not very likley to be reading the SIM.
Quote5. Most of the fatalities under perfectly good canopies involve non-aggressive WLs or jumpers over 500
jumps.
Not last year...And as the canopies become more available to the less experienced jumpes...they will get them, and the incidents of low timers with high WL will increase...The trend over the last few years show that more of the deaths are low timers every year over the prior year.
Quote6. A BSR would need to pass a vote of the S&T Comm. FIRST - before it comes up as a motion in front of the
full BOD. I personally do not know anyone on the BOD that is in favor of a WL Limit BSR.
So because it would be hard...It is best not to try?
QuoteLet me know what you think because getting a new section into the SIM is MUCH easier than getting the WL
Limit BSR to be approved.
I understand what you are saying.
However, the people that need to have this info...will not go looking for it in the SIM. If they knew that they didn't know, they would take the class or get coaching.
Case in point..I never looked into the SIM till I started teaching
A BSR would give them more than a guide they can blow off..(Which is all a SIM addition would be). A BSR would make them follow it, or they could prove they have "The right stuff" and pass a test, or so impress the S&TA that they can carry on.
If a SIM addition is the best we can do...well I personally think it is way short of anything that we are trying to do...And it shows the USPA has serious issues about being more than a cool magazine, and having a bunch of guys to lobby in DC, and build a museum that most don't even want. Having said that if it truely is the best the USPA can do....I can't MAKE anything else happen.
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
If a SIM addition is the best we can do...well I personally think it is way short of anything that we are trying to do...And it shows the USPA has serious issues about being more than a cool magazine, and having a bunch of guys to lobby in DC, and build a museum that most don't even want. Having said that if it truely is the best the USPA can do....I can't MAKE anything else happen.
Ron
Ron,
What is it you are tring to do? What ever it is you have to start somewhere.
Sparky
Ron
Ron,
What is it you are tring to do? What ever it is you have to start somewhere.
Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
billvon 2,453
>Here is a very rough draft of SIM 6-10 Canopy Progression
>Recommendations
Just read through it. It looks very much like the canopy training stuff in my graduate course. Some comments:
-The WL as presented needs a rationale. Given that this is being presented as an option under your plan, there needs to be a lot more than "we suggest you keep below 1.3 to 1." If there's no good reason to do so, why would anyone?
-There is nothing about lifesaving manuevers i.e. turning low, turning in the flare, getting out of the corner, collision avoidance at 50 feet.
- "The toggle pressure increases with wing loading for a given make and model canopy." - I haven't found this to be true. If anything, it takes less toggle pressure to get a Stiletto 97 to do a given rate turn than a Stiletto 170. In any case, is this useful info?
This line - "You can signal your intention to turn by kicking out a leg in the direction of your turn." - should go in several other places in the SIM first i.e. student training. Otherwise it will be an unknown signal; people will be confused by it if anyone ever does use it.
>Recommendations
Just read through it. It looks very much like the canopy training stuff in my graduate course. Some comments:
-The WL as presented needs a rationale. Given that this is being presented as an option under your plan, there needs to be a lot more than "we suggest you keep below 1.3 to 1." If there's no good reason to do so, why would anyone?
-There is nothing about lifesaving manuevers i.e. turning low, turning in the flare, getting out of the corner, collision avoidance at 50 feet.
- "The toggle pressure increases with wing loading for a given make and model canopy." - I haven't found this to be true. If anything, it takes less toggle pressure to get a Stiletto 97 to do a given rate turn than a Stiletto 170. In any case, is this useful info?
This line - "You can signal your intention to turn by kicking out a leg in the direction of your turn." - should go in several other places in the SIM first i.e. student training. Otherwise it will be an unknown signal; people will be confused by it if anyone ever does use it.
Quote>But I want to know about guys in the field currently flying this
>extreme gear choice NOT the spectre of or rumor of or unreasonable
>Fear of the possibility of maybe that this could be.
ok, three examples from our DZ. I'll call them Larry, Curly and Moe.
Larry, Curly and Moe all got fairly aggressive HP canopies - 1.7 to 1 Stilettos and a 1.8 to 1 Sabre. They had around 200 jumps. Larry would come into the landing area yelling "Get out of my way!" because he couldn't control where he landed
__________________________________________________
Still not the extreme example of 50 jumps at a loading of 2:0. which would be scary to say the least.
You are talking about elipticals at 1.7 and 200 jumps. And this is more of my understanding of pushing the envelope for canopy progression. I know several people who fall into a similar category. Derek back when he was around those jump numbers and myself around those jump numbers, I know others too. Not too many but this is covered in that I do believe this to exist.
I can't speak for Dereck, I can only assume in his case as is the fact in my case, we never had to yell at anyone to get out of our way, crashed into or narrowly missed any objects on landing.
I'm pretty confident that we would not be allowed to operate so recklessly in the main landing areas at our DZs. Speaking for the main landing areas at Perris and elsinore, compliance is mandatory you must not be dangerous and MUST be able to provide for a fair degree of accuracy in your pattern and landing and the follow the rules for those areas.
Now you can do what you want if you land out at both DZs as long as isn't so dangerous that it draws the negative attention of the DZO-S&TA.
Landing out its completely acceptable (although not to me) to be completely out of control on any main at any amount of jump numbers at any wing loading. I have seen this from the 45 jump very non current yet to be licensed jumper struggling through their finances to the multi thousand jump very experienced and current, maybe a little older less physically fit, jumper both typically loaded around 1:1.
Much more often than not when the paramedics visit us its for these folks not Larry curly or moe. If your three stooges example had been landing out their antics would have drawn no more attention than the antics of the lightly loaded non- landing folks.
Don't get me wrong in anyway, I agree those three lads in no way belong on their chosen gear. If I operated so poorly, I would not be on the gear I choose and upsizing and or training to meet a safe standard would be the order of the day. Crashing into airspeed 8 would be a scaring memory. Now softly sliding into passion 8 might be fun though.
What do you think when I suggest we need training at all levels available to a broad range of people? As the fatality numbers suggest its broad range of experience levels and wing loadings that make up the fatalities. I know its easy to write a BSR for the newer jumpers but how do you address the jumpers with more than enough jumps and maybe more than a decade in the sport.
The grim reaper has no favorites.
Ron 7
QuoteWhat is it you are tring to do? What ever it is you have to start somewhere.
A SIM entry will not reach the ones who need it...I went 500 jumps with out ever even looking at the SIM...Why? I didn't need it, I was a good skydiver and did not need to read "safety stuff".
I almost bounced on jump 270...I did video for the first time...I videoed a friends 300th jump while he videoed a Tandem...Long story short I got a main at 500 feet....
Then I hooked it in on jump #380 with a 1.4 WL in 1996..My buddies were trying to have me get a 1.8 WL...because it was cool. PD called me back then and refused to sell me the 97...With great reluctance they said they would allow me to get a 107...After thinking about it I got the 120...And because of this...I can still walk.
And yet I still did not look into the SIM. But I knew the BSR's..I had to abide by them.
a SIM entry will have no teeth to it. It will not keep a guy from gettinga 1.5 WL at 250 jumps...It will just tell him it is a bad idea...just like all the other people that he does not listen to on the DZ.
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
billvon 2,453
>You are talking about elipticals at 1.7 and 200 jumps. And this is
>more of my understanding of pushing the envelope for canopy
> progression.
That's an example from three years ago. These loadings are not that unusual at many of the DZ's that I jump at nowadays. Three weeks ago I jumped with someone with 200 jumps, jumping a Pilot loaded at 1.5. It wasn't fast enough so he downsized (via the Square One demo program) to a 1.7. No one said a word; it wasn't that unusual.
>What do you think when I suggest we need training at all levels
> available to a broad range of people?
I agree with you; we need that training at all levels. I think that one of the underlying philosophies in all of USPA's programs and ratings is that newer jumpers are more carefully protected than more experienced jumpers. Look at pull altitudes, wind limits and night jumps. Given that, I think it's more appropriate to try to essentially coerce newer jumpers to get canopy training, while allowing more experienced jumpers the option to get training on their own. More experienced jumpers may not be any more skilled, but they do have a better perspective on the sport than newer jumpers. They have seen more, have done more and can make better decisions on their own safety (usually!)
I think one benefit of any mandatory canopy-training program (or, in this case, a 'coercion' canopy training program) is that there will be a demand for canopy training courses. Once courses start to fulfill this demand, they will be more available to new jumpers and experienced jumpers alike.
>more of my understanding of pushing the envelope for canopy
> progression.
That's an example from three years ago. These loadings are not that unusual at many of the DZ's that I jump at nowadays. Three weeks ago I jumped with someone with 200 jumps, jumping a Pilot loaded at 1.5. It wasn't fast enough so he downsized (via the Square One demo program) to a 1.7. No one said a word; it wasn't that unusual.
>What do you think when I suggest we need training at all levels
> available to a broad range of people?
I agree with you; we need that training at all levels. I think that one of the underlying philosophies in all of USPA's programs and ratings is that newer jumpers are more carefully protected than more experienced jumpers. Look at pull altitudes, wind limits and night jumps. Given that, I think it's more appropriate to try to essentially coerce newer jumpers to get canopy training, while allowing more experienced jumpers the option to get training on their own. More experienced jumpers may not be any more skilled, but they do have a better perspective on the sport than newer jumpers. They have seen more, have done more and can make better decisions on their own safety (usually!)
I think one benefit of any mandatory canopy-training program (or, in this case, a 'coercion' canopy training program) is that there will be a demand for canopy training courses. Once courses start to fulfill this demand, they will be more available to new jumpers and experienced jumpers alike.
quade 3
Ron --
The problem I have with including this new material in Section 2 of the SIM is that it would then carry the weight of regulation with the FAA and enforceable by mandate of the Group Member Pledge. Not that it would in itself be a bad thing, but at that point the drop zones could then become vulnerable to lawsuits if some joker decides to disregard the rule and hook in since it -would- be the responsibility of the Group Member drop zones to enforce compliance with the BSR.
This would be a very powerful tool for lawyers.
By placing new guidance in another part of the SIM it becomes just that, guidance. That is not to say that guidance can't be ignored, but if you look at some guidance elsewhere in the SIM I think you'll see that it's vary rarely ignored -- HALO jumps and Night Jumps for instance.
It's all a matter of mindset.
I doubt that very many jumpers decide to ignore the Night Jump recommendations of SIM Section 6-4 and I doubt that very many DZOs and S&TAs would allow it either. It's all a matter of getting everyone to simply agree that going beyond certain wingloadings before certain points and experience in a skydivers jumping career is a bad idea.
Does that mean that the DZO stands at the ramp and checks every rig before boarding? No. that's just impractical. But what it does mean is that DZOs and S&TAs should be aware of what the new guidance would be, talk about it at safety day, talk it over with the gear store & instructors, and maybe watch people landing -- when you see something stupid begin to happen, pull out the SIM and have a talk with the individual. If the individual continues anyway -- boot his ass off the DZ.
Will he go somewhere else? Maybe, but hopefully that someplace else will also have the same mindset and boot his ass off that dz as well.
Eventually, people will get the idea.
The problem I have with including this new material in Section 2 of the SIM is that it would then carry the weight of regulation with the FAA and enforceable by mandate of the Group Member Pledge. Not that it would in itself be a bad thing, but at that point the drop zones could then become vulnerable to lawsuits if some joker decides to disregard the rule and hook in since it -would- be the responsibility of the Group Member drop zones to enforce compliance with the BSR.
This would be a very powerful tool for lawyers.
By placing new guidance in another part of the SIM it becomes just that, guidance. That is not to say that guidance can't be ignored, but if you look at some guidance elsewhere in the SIM I think you'll see that it's vary rarely ignored -- HALO jumps and Night Jumps for instance.
It's all a matter of mindset.
I doubt that very many jumpers decide to ignore the Night Jump recommendations of SIM Section 6-4 and I doubt that very many DZOs and S&TAs would allow it either. It's all a matter of getting everyone to simply agree that going beyond certain wingloadings before certain points and experience in a skydivers jumping career is a bad idea.
Does that mean that the DZO stands at the ramp and checks every rig before boarding? No. that's just impractical. But what it does mean is that DZOs and S&TAs should be aware of what the new guidance would be, talk about it at safety day, talk it over with the gear store & instructors, and maybe watch people landing -- when you see something stupid begin to happen, pull out the SIM and have a talk with the individual. If the individual continues anyway -- boot his ass off the DZ.
Will he go somewhere else? Maybe, but hopefully that someplace else will also have the same mindset and boot his ass off that dz as well.
Eventually, people will get the idea.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
billvon 2,453
>but at that point the drop zones could then become vulnerable to
> lawsuits if some joker decides to disregard the rule and hook in
> since it -would- be the responsibility of the Group Member drop
> zones to enforce compliance with the BSR.
I'm not sure about this anymore. I heard it about Buzz's place - "if you require a cypres, people will sue you if they have a misfire!" I heard it about the ISP - "if you have an official ISP and someone doesn't follow it, they could get sued!" I suppose it's nominally true about pull altitudes, cloud clearance requirements, and currency requirements, but those aren't generally cited in lawsuits.
In any case, I think DZ's would rather support a program that reduces fatalities than get legal protection from potential consequences _of_ those fatalities. The best defense against having wrongful-death lawsuits is to not have as many deaths.
>when you see something stupid begin to happen, pull out the SIM
> and have a talk with the individual. If the individual continues
> anyway -- boot his ass off the DZ.
I.E. do what we do today. I like the idea, but it's simply not working.
>Will he go somewhere else? Maybe, but hopefully that someplace
> else will also have the same mindset and boot his ass off that dz as
> well.
Yep, but you can easily get a few hundred jumps in hopping from DZ to DZ and avoiding the S+TA. These few hundred jumps are the very danger zone we're trying to deal with here.
> lawsuits if some joker decides to disregard the rule and hook in
> since it -would- be the responsibility of the Group Member drop
> zones to enforce compliance with the BSR.
I'm not sure about this anymore. I heard it about Buzz's place - "if you require a cypres, people will sue you if they have a misfire!" I heard it about the ISP - "if you have an official ISP and someone doesn't follow it, they could get sued!" I suppose it's nominally true about pull altitudes, cloud clearance requirements, and currency requirements, but those aren't generally cited in lawsuits.
In any case, I think DZ's would rather support a program that reduces fatalities than get legal protection from potential consequences _of_ those fatalities. The best defense against having wrongful-death lawsuits is to not have as many deaths.
>when you see something stupid begin to happen, pull out the SIM
> and have a talk with the individual. If the individual continues
> anyway -- boot his ass off the DZ.
I.E. do what we do today. I like the idea, but it's simply not working.
>Will he go somewhere else? Maybe, but hopefully that someplace
> else will also have the same mindset and boot his ass off that dz as
> well.
Yep, but you can easily get a few hundred jumps in hopping from DZ to DZ and avoiding the S+TA. These few hundred jumps are the very danger zone we're trying to deal with here.
Ron 7
Quade,
Good points.
So he is watched more before he gets to jump there, or gets a waiver.
The real liability is IF he had a waiver.
You are correct that if the DZ did a better job of watching them, and grounding them for stupid things the problem would not exist.
The thing is they are not doing that now. I doubt they will tomorrow unless it was a BSR.
We all see people under canopies that they have no buisness flying now right? Well, how did they get them? Why have they not been kicked of the DZ?
So the problem is not new...and the old ways of looking at it are not working....
We know the problem adding it as a recommendation is that people are not listening to recomendations now when it comes to high performance wings at high loads with little experience.
You mention HALO, and night jumps...These are both special jumps. There are very few people that have 200 night or HALO jumps (military excluded).
A HP canopy is part of a *normal* skydive. So why look at the SIM for advice on it...Bubba did just fine with a 1.7 at 200 jumps, and he is stupid...I am much more skilled/smart/better/faster/younger/better looking/got a better car than him...ect. So it would not apply to me. It is a recomendation for the people with out my mad skills.
If it is not a BSR MOST will not even look at it. As for the DZO or S&TA using it to talk to him...well we already know that a high WL with little experience is a bad thing...Why are they not talking/stoping/grounding them now?
Ron
Good points.
QuoteNot that it
would in itself be a bad thing, but at that point the drop zones could then become vulnerable to lawsuits if
some joker decides to disregard the rule and hook in since it -would- be the responsibility of the Group
Member drop zones to enforce compliance with the BSR.
So he is watched more before he gets to jump there, or gets a waiver.
The real liability is IF he had a waiver.
You are correct that if the DZ did a better job of watching them, and grounding them for stupid things the problem would not exist.
The thing is they are not doing that now. I doubt they will tomorrow unless it was a BSR.
We all see people under canopies that they have no buisness flying now right? Well, how did they get them? Why have they not been kicked of the DZ?
So the problem is not new...and the old ways of looking at it are not working....
We know the problem adding it as a recommendation is that people are not listening to recomendations now when it comes to high performance wings at high loads with little experience.
You mention HALO, and night jumps...These are both special jumps. There are very few people that have 200 night or HALO jumps (military excluded).
A HP canopy is part of a *normal* skydive. So why look at the SIM for advice on it...Bubba did just fine with a 1.7 at 200 jumps, and he is stupid...I am much more skilled/smart/better/faster/younger/better looking/got a better car than him...ect. So it would not apply to me. It is a recomendation for the people with out my mad skills.
If it is not a BSR MOST will not even look at it. As for the DZO or S&TA using it to talk to him...well we already know that a high WL with little experience is a bad thing...Why are they not talking/stoping/grounding them now?
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
quade 3
Quote
>when you see something stupid begin to happen, pull out the SIM
> and have a talk with the individual. If the individual continues
> anyway -- boot his ass off the DZ.
I.E. do what we do today. I like the idea, but it's simply not working.
Here I disagree.
I'll admit that I don't get around to a lot of different drop zones, but in my limited experience and opinion, people do not get grounded anywhere nearly enough.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Ron 7
Quote
I'll admit that I don't get around to a lot of different drop zones, but in my limited experience and opinion,
people do not get grounded anywhere nearly enough.
And suddenly we are going to ground them for not listening...when we don't now?
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
People definitely try.
Talking To A Dead Man
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites