Ron 7 #201 June 20, 2003 Quote Replying to: Re: [okalb] Wingload BSR by markbaur Post: In Reply To Once again you have no idea what you are talking about... Do I feel I need to change what I am doing....no. Thanks for reinforcing my point a second time. How about you qouting the whole thing...ya know the part where he is going to take classes? You are not making your point at all. Guys like Oren are not getting killed. If they were, then people would be trying to regulate them. Ron"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 #202 June 20, 2003 This post is just proof you have not been around long enough. BSR's are written not because ONE guy died...They are written when a TREND is seen. Look around...learn some more...Do you not see a trend of guys getting wings they can't handle... Do you know the difference between a high wingload, and a safe wingload? (I am not trying to slam you here, but you have only 88 jumps). Do you understand the issue? It is not about makinga rule to make a rule...It is to stop a trend. Say what you want the TREND is there. Education is not working to fix it. Ron"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 #203 June 20, 2003 Quoteand perhaps the number of people who by virtue of being older and perhaps having increased outside responsibilities are not as likely to desire to increase their acceptable risk level.. as i said to be meaningful everyone SHOULD post jump #s /WL (ie will it affect you) age / # of responsibilities (to determine if you are someone who is likely to desire to "push the envelope") 2,900 1.7 & 1.8 (I had a 2.6, but I found that it was to hard to fly that on EVERY jump, at EVERY DZ.) 30 years old....I have a Dog. Number of dead people I have seen on a DZ...4 Number of people I have Known that died...On second thought, I don't want to count these up. A LOT. Number of people I have seen fucked up on a DZ...Way to many to count. Ron"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
wmw999 2,121 #204 June 20, 2003 Quoteand perhaps the number of people who by virtue of being older and perhaps having increased outside responsibilities are not as likely to desire to increase their acceptable risk level.. as i said to be meaningful everyone SHOULD post jump #s /WL (ie will it affect you) age / # of responsibilities (to determine if you are someone who is likely to desire to "push the envelope") Remember, the current proposal won't impact any current canopies. But I'm 48, I have one adult child, plenty of insurance, and two dogs. 1200 jumps, and I wingload at about 1.1. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Genn 0 #205 June 20, 2003 QuoteIs it better to save and let them die in traffic accident or cancer? Let them die young! Let the natural selection rule the world!Quote I'll probably get bashed for saying this but I kinda agree with you. People should know their limits. People can read the 'warning' labels. Skydiving(which includes swooping) can kill, we all know that. If a skydiver goes against all the 'warnings' and swoops at whatever jump #s he/she has, then that is his/her choice. They might be the ones who get away with it, they might be the ones who get injured(and hopefully humbled), or they might be the ones who get killed. "If you're gonna be stupid, you better be tough!" And I don't think regulation will make stupid people smarter. Now, people do what they want to do regardless of current regulations. I just think it will be another rule for people to break. This sport used to be full of freedom. IMO, Do what you may and cover your actions! That goes for ALL aspects of skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diverdriver 5 #206 June 20, 2003 QuoteSo if people die it doesn't matter how, we'll just make up new arbitrary rules and feel better about it? This knee-jerk approach makes me feel worse, not better. Nathaniel. It does matter how they die. That's how we've gotten to this point. The rule is not arbitrary. It has basis in total experience. Jump numbers is the method for determining some background. In order to accumilate 500 jumps you need to have been around a bit. Look at Tandem ratings. You need to have been around awhile so they say 500 jumps AND 3 years in the sport. Since higher wingloadings may not be as complex as Tandem jumping the jump number requirement will have some effect on when someone will be able to get a higher WL. Will this cure everything. Sure as hell not. But it most definitely will have an effect. A good one I think too. Skydivers think we need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to flying. We don't. We mearly have to look at how pilots are certified for flying high performance and complex planes and recognize that we as humans have limitations. There are times where we need more education to do something different. No one is born knowing how to fly. We have to be taught. And that teaching comes in blood. It is the result of years of broken bodies. Are you going to listen to me now Nathaniel? How many years have you been in this sport or in aviation (if you are a pilot) total? What have you seen?Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites markbaur 0 #207 June 20, 2003 QuoteHow about you qouting the whole thing...ya know the part where he is going to take classes? You'll see elsewhere in this thread I reposted with the whole quote, which takes up space, but doesn't change the meaning. He quoted me: [Quote] BUT... Would you support a WL regulation that required you to buy a different canopy? Or one that made swooping and swoop contests less glamorous? Would you support a WL regulation that required you to do something different than you're doing now? And here is his response: >No I wouldn't, but not for the reason that you are getting at. >I wouldn't because I have 1400 jumps and I wouldn't support >regulation that would say that someone with 1400 jumps >doesn't know enough to make up their own mind. I will >support regulation that says that someone with 200 jumps >doesn't know enough to make up their own mind, because for >the most part they don't. >As long as there is a way for them to prove they are >competent and test out, than a regulation such as this can only >help the situation. There is no denying that someone with 100 > jumps should not be jumping a 1.5 to 1 wingload without >serious training and even then it is still risky. >I can sit in a classroom with you all day and teach you about >how to safely take my motorcycle out on the track, but until >you have done a lot of laps around that track, you are a >danger to yourself and the others around you. All we are >saying is start out on a small manageable bike before you take >an open class unforgiving sport bike out there. >Lots of people have talked about regulations taking away your > personal right to choose as a low timer, but nobody has come >up with any substantial negatives to making people wait until >they know a little more before they get in over their head. Taking classes does not represent a change in his behavior. He's doing it without the pressure of regulation. The bold print in his reply is my emphasis. I want to be in the "regulation for thee but not for me" camp with you. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites markbaur 0 #208 June 20, 2003 QuoteRemember, the current proposal won't impact any current canopies. Why not? I don't recall grandfathering anybody with respect to pull altitudes. If some jumpers are using canopies unsuited to their weight and experience, why let them continue? Because it would be too expensive for them to be safe? Statistically, they are more likely to be injured or killed on their next jump than to go any number of jumps and then get killed or injured. How expensive is that? Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #209 June 20, 2003 I know, I was answering him. Ron"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 #210 June 20, 2003 The end result of all of this is simple... Oren with 1400 jumps, me with 2,900, and you with 4,000 are not the ones getting killed. It is the guys with 100-500 jumps. If you, me , and Oren were dying...Then I would be trying to regulate US...But we are not, they are. I don't buy into the "you are an adult...do what you want" group. To be a member of ANYTHING means that you sacrifice some personal freedoms for the good of the group. And to be honest I can't think of a single orginization that is involved in ANY activity that does not have some basic saftey rules. These rules were put in place to PROTECT the group. Ron"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 kallend 1,623 #211 June 20, 2003 QuoteQuoteSo if people die it doesn't matter how, we'll just make up new arbitrary rules and feel better about it? This knee-jerk approach makes me feel worse, not better. Nathaniel. It does matter how they die. That's how we've gotten to this point. The rule is not arbitrary. It has basis in total experience. Jump numbers is the method for determining some background. In order to accumilate 500 jumps you need to have been around a bit. Look at Tandem ratings. You need to have been around awhile so they say 500 jumps AND 3 years in the sport. Since higher wingloadings may not be as complex as Tandem jumping the jump number requirement will have some effect on when someone will be able to get a higher WL. Will this cure everything. Sure as hell not. But it most definitely will have an effect. A good one I think too. Skydivers think we need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to flying. We don't. We mearly have to look at how pilots are certified for flying high performance and complex planes and recognize that we as humans have limitations. There are times where we need more education to do something different. No one is born knowing how to fly. We have to be taught. And that teaching comes in blood. It is the result of years of broken bodies. Are you going to listen to me now Nathaniel? How many years have you been in this sport or in aviation (if you are a pilot) total? What have you seen? Chris - there are a lot of possible parameters that affect fatalities and injuries under canopy. They include: Experience Training Gender Age Personality type Substance abuse Sleep deprivation Reaction time Visual acuity Eye-hand coordination Large and small motor skills Physical conditioning and probably things I haven't thought of. I am AGAINST this proposed BSR for the simple reason that it ASSUMES jump number is the single determining factor, without anyone actually having bothered to look and see if any other factors are, in fact, causal or more relevant. Any analysis that has been done is at best SUPERFICIAL. The numbers in the proposal have no basis in anything more scientific than someone's gut-feeling. This is NOT the way to make rules. Finally, rules to protect people from themselves are notoriously unsuccessful. JK, 1220 jumps, WL 1.4, age 57... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pkasdorf 0 #212 June 20, 2003 1,3 and 265 jumps. Some regulation is needed without going to extremes. It is absolutely clear that even with education people do very dangerous and silly things. One has to have the freedom to do dangerous and silly things if one wants to? NO! Why? Because it may endanger other fellow skydivers and affects our public image, which is important to keep us enjoying our sport with a minimum of external interference. HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #213 June 20, 2003 >Chris - there are a lot of possible parameters that affect fatalities and >injuries under canopy. They include: >Experience >Training >Gender >Age . . . Yep. And you could make exactly the same list of things that affect a person's ability to pull at 2000 feet, or of things that affect a person's ability to do a demo. Yet we still have simple jump number limits for those activities. Based purely on fatality stats, those SUPERFICIAL rules that ASSUME jump numbers mean something (your emphasis) seem to work. >The numbers in the proposal have no basis in anything more scientific >than someone's gut-feeling. Neither does any other BSR. We operate primarily on gut feel in this sport. When I teach it's how I decide to pass someone. When I ground someone, I decide that based primarily on gut feel. If I had to rationalize every decision I made as S+TA based on provable, reproducable results, I wouldn't be as effective - and at least two people would be dead by now. >Finally, rules to protect people from themselves are notoriously unsuccessful. That's been proven to not be true when it comes to aviation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 259 #214 June 20, 2003 Quoteand perhaps the number of people who by virtue of being older and perhaps having increased outside responsibilities are not as likely to desire to increase their acceptable risk level.. as i said to be meaningful everyone SHOULD post jump #s /WL (ie will it affect you) age / # of responsibilities (to determine if you are someone who is likely to desire to "push the envelope") I'm 38, unemployed and have an adult son who can take care of my 2 dogs if anything happens to me. I have good medical insurance and three fused vertebrae. My gear is the most expensive thing I own. 930 jumps over 13 years, currently flying a 1.0-1.1 wingloading. I plan to still be jumping when I'm 58. My choice of canopy and wingloading was made with this in mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diverdriver 5 #215 June 20, 2003 QuoteExperience Training Gender Age Personality type Substance abuse Sleep deprivation Reaction time Visual acuity Eye-hand coordination Large and small motor skills Physical conditioning and probably things I haven't thought of. Yes, and that's why people need time in this sport to identify issues they have personally. They need to see more. Every year since I've been in the sport (1995) Parachutist has run the annual fatality report and every year it is a hot topic that people are killing themselves under perfectly functioning canopies. 8 years of questioning. How can you say this is superficial? I think some people get a bit hung up on the numbers and forget that each number is a human being. The airlines strove for 0 passenger fatalities and have actually achieved that goal in recent years. Not consecutively but it has happened. Why can't that same effort be made in skydiving. There's regulation for recurrent training. And you have to be type rated on each plane you fly. Why is that such a hard concept in skydiving? You must recieve training to fly any canopy you fly. It's regulated that way. In this proposed BSR you can do the training early or you can wait until you meet the jump number requirement. If you really feel that this BSR is bogus I expect you to try and repeal the 500 jump requirement for people to be Tandem Masters. You state that jump numbers mean nothing. How can you let this injustice stand? I know you won't but I'm trying to make a point. Jump numbers is an accepted form of judging experience in this sport. We are currently raising our D license requirement to 500 jumps to get the license. Why? Because we recognize the sport is not the same as in past years. I agree change for changes sake is bad. But in this case change is necessary or we will continue to see many people every year becoming quadraplegics or killed because they are flying canopies beyond their ability and jump numbers.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #216 June 20, 2003 Quote*** The airlines strove for 0 passenger fatalities and have actually achieved that goal in recent years. Not consecutively but it has happened. Why can't that same effort be made in skydiving. There's regulation for recurrent training. And you have to be type rated on each plane you fly. Why is that such a hard concept in skydiving? You must recieve training to fly any canopy you fly. It's regulated that way. Are you seriously suggesting that skydiving should be regulated in the same way as commercial aviation? I think most skydivers would take up some other pastime if that came to pass. Quote In this proposed BSR you can do the training early or you can wait until you meet the jump number requirement. If you really feel that this BSR is bogus I expect you to try and repeal the 500 jump requirement for people to be Tandem Masters. False comparison - that rule is not to protect the TM, it is to protect the "passenger". Quote You state that jump numbers mean nothing. How can you let this injustice stand? I know you won't but I'm trying to make a point. Jump numbers is an accepted form of judging experience in this sport. We are currently raising our D license requirement to 500 jumps to get the license. Why? Because we recognize the sport is not the same as in past years. I agree change for changes sake is bad. But in this case change is necessary or we will continue to see many people every year becoming quadraplegics or killed because they are flying canopies beyond their ability and jump numbers. I didn't say jump numbers "mean nothing", I said that no serious study has been done that identifies jump numbers as the prime culprit. This rule may be "fixing" the wrong problem. What purpose is served by having a "D" under the new rules? All the privileges previously conferred seem to remain at 200 jumps. Bogus comparison again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #217 June 20, 2003 Quote>Chris - there are a lot of possible parameters that affect fatalities and >injuries under canopy. They include: >Experience >Training >Gender >Age . . . Yep. And you could make exactly the same list of things that affect a person's ability to pull at 2000 feet, or of things that affect a person's ability to do a demo. Yet we still have simple jump number limits for those activities. Based purely on fatality stats, those SUPERFICIAL rules that ASSUME jump numbers mean something (your emphasis) seem to work. No, there are jump number rules AND other criteria. Quote >The numbers in the proposal have no basis in anything more scientific >than someone's gut-feeling. Neither does any other BSR. We operate primarily on gut feel in this sport. When I teach it's how I decide to pass someone. When I ground someone, I decide that based primarily on gut feel. If I had to rationalize every decision I made as S+TA based on provable, reproducable results, I wouldn't be as effective - and at least two people would be dead by now. >Finally, rules to protect people from themselves are notoriously unsuccessful. That's been proven to not be true when it comes to aviation. So you'd like gun-toting security guards checking our canopy size before we board the plane? Anyway, I disagree. Every year hundreds of people kill themselves flying VFR into IMC, doing inadequate preflight inspections, failing to have adequate fuel and doing buzz jobs, contrary to the FARs.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diverdriver 5 #218 June 20, 2003 John, I completely disagree with everything you said. You say regulation doesn't help. I say it does. Look at the airlines. They strove to get 0 passenger deaths in a year by regulating training. It worked. So how can you say it won't work here? No, we don't need regulation to the level that the airlines have. That's silly. But there are things we can do in this sport to improve it and guide new jumpers. This BSR is one of them. We regulate that student must have RSLs and that other jumpers are encouraged to have them except in certain situations. Why is this so hard to conceive that a regulation can't help? Well John, I guess you have your work cut out for you. Would you please do the statistics for fatalities for the past 10 years and tell us what percentage of canopy/landing fatalites were people under 500 jumps to how many over. Tell me that the percentage below 500 jumps is not higher than above 500 jumps and I will reverse my view.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #219 June 20, 2003 Quote Remember, the current proposal won't impact any current canopies. and of course thats another issue. shouldnt we be wary of passing a rule that you dont want applied to EVERYONE? why is someone with 400 jumps @ 1.8 OK now but after the proposed BSR the next guy to get 400 jumps isnt?? what if the rule were written so that it applied to EVERYONE? ie Mr. 12,000 jumps has to pass the same skills test that mr 300 does to fly the same wingloading?? would everyone still be for it??..even though it meant that they might take away the "toys" you feel its your right to fly by virtue of jump numbers alone?? what if the rule says ANY significant change of wing type requires testing??? after all your 800 jumps on that lightly loaded spectre might not have taught you much about flying the VX88 you just bought... but when you make a mistake, and lots of people make mistakes 1000s of jumps or no.. and hook it in trying a turn you havent practiced enough under a wing your no where near current on....your in the "its ok incidents" because with 800 jumps your a skydiving adult?? Quote... If you really feel that this BSR is bogus I expect you to try and repeal the 500 jump requirement for people to be Tandem Masters. theres another straw man again.. TM's have passengers, airlines have passengers, buses have passengers, all are commercial enterprises and so are and should be regulated differently from a sport particularly in ascpects that really only involve a single participant.. IE what you fly____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diverdriver 5 #220 June 20, 2003 Quotetheres another straw man again.. TM's have passengers, airlines have passengers, buses have passengers, all are commercial enterprises and so are and should be regulated differently from a sport particularly in ascpects that really only involve a single participant.. IE what you fly You calling me skinny? Wait a cottin pickin minute. You jump in the same air I do. What you jump IS important to me since you could collide with me if it is beyond your ability to control yourself. It absolute IS my business.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #221 June 20, 2003 QuoteJohn, I completely disagree with everything you said. You say regulation doesn't help. I say it does. Look at the airlines. They strove to get 0 passenger deaths in a year by regulating training. It worked. So how can you say it won't work here? No, we don't need regulation to the level that the airlines have. That's silly. But there are things we can do in this sport to improve it and guide new jumpers. This BSR is one of them. We regulate that student must have RSLs and that other jumpers are encouraged to have them except in certain situations. Why is this so hard to conceive that a regulation can't help? Well John, I guess you have your work cut out for you. Would you please do the statistics for fatalities for the past 10 years and tell us what percentage of canopy/landing fatalites were people under 500 jumps to how many over. Tell me that the percentage below 500 jumps is not higher than above 500 jumps and I will reverse my view. 1. I didn't say training and education wouldn't work. I didn;t even say regulation won't work. I said that this proposal is poorly constructed and shouldn't become a BSR because it may be attacking the wrong problem. 2. Every airline accident is minutely examined for cause. Regulations grew out of those examinations. The proposed BSR does not have the same status - it has not come about on account of detailed examination of accident causes. Even your suggestion is inadequate, because you left wing loading out of the equation. The available stats from USPA don't include WL, so how can anyone say that they know definitively that WL is the issue. How would you feel about a new FAR based on the gut-feeling of some FAA bureaucrat that males under 30 shouldn't be airline captains? How do your 59 year old colleagues feel about the age 60 retirement rule that was based on no safety analysis? Is someone really going to change canopy size every 100 jumps to go progressively to a 1.5WL at 500? Not a chance. People will simply make a large increase in WL when they get to 500 jumps, and maybe the fatalities will be moved around but not change. Maybe the BSR will encourage people like me (still happy at 1.4 at 1200 jumps) to downsize faster because 1.5 must be safe if it is enshrined that USPA says it's OK when you have 500 jumps. Maybe this BSR will actually increase fatalities - we just DON'T KNOW. There are altogether too many unknowns with THIS proposal. It needs more work to become acceptable.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 259 #222 June 20, 2003 Quoteshouldnt we be wary of passing a rule that you dont want applied to EVERYONE? why is someone with 400 jumps @ 1.8 OK now but after the proposed BSR the next guy to get 400 jumps isnt?? For the same reason the guy with 200 jumps today is getting his D license and the guy who gets to 200 jumps next year will have to wait until he has 500. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #223 June 20, 2003 >No, there are jump number rules AND other criteria. What are the other criteria that allows an A licensed jumper to pull at 2000 feet, or requires a D licensed jumper to pull at 2500? >So you'd like gun-toting security guards checking our canopy size >before we board the plane? Please take the games to rec.skydiving, if you prefer them to discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #224 June 20, 2003 QuoteQuoteshouldnt we be wary of passing a rule that you dont want applied to EVERYONE? why is someone with 400 jumps @ 1.8 OK now but after the proposed BSR the next guy to get 400 jumps isnt?? For the same reason the guy with 200 jumps today is getting his D license and the guy who gets to 200 jumps next year will have to wait until he has 500. The "D" license is just a piece of paper. What you can do with a "D" this year you will be able to do with a "C" next year, so in reality the jump number change is just cosmetic.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #225 June 20, 2003 QuoteNo, there are jump number rules AND other criteria. What other criteria about pull altitudes? Ron"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 Prev 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next Page 9 of 12 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 Go To Topic Listing
diverdriver 5 #206 June 20, 2003 QuoteSo if people die it doesn't matter how, we'll just make up new arbitrary rules and feel better about it? This knee-jerk approach makes me feel worse, not better. Nathaniel. It does matter how they die. That's how we've gotten to this point. The rule is not arbitrary. It has basis in total experience. Jump numbers is the method for determining some background. In order to accumilate 500 jumps you need to have been around a bit. Look at Tandem ratings. You need to have been around awhile so they say 500 jumps AND 3 years in the sport. Since higher wingloadings may not be as complex as Tandem jumping the jump number requirement will have some effect on when someone will be able to get a higher WL. Will this cure everything. Sure as hell not. But it most definitely will have an effect. A good one I think too. Skydivers think we need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to flying. We don't. We mearly have to look at how pilots are certified for flying high performance and complex planes and recognize that we as humans have limitations. There are times where we need more education to do something different. No one is born knowing how to fly. We have to be taught. And that teaching comes in blood. It is the result of years of broken bodies. Are you going to listen to me now Nathaniel? How many years have you been in this sport or in aviation (if you are a pilot) total? What have you seen?Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markbaur 0 #207 June 20, 2003 QuoteHow about you qouting the whole thing...ya know the part where he is going to take classes? You'll see elsewhere in this thread I reposted with the whole quote, which takes up space, but doesn't change the meaning. He quoted me: [Quote] BUT... Would you support a WL regulation that required you to buy a different canopy? Or one that made swooping and swoop contests less glamorous? Would you support a WL regulation that required you to do something different than you're doing now? And here is his response: >No I wouldn't, but not for the reason that you are getting at. >I wouldn't because I have 1400 jumps and I wouldn't support >regulation that would say that someone with 1400 jumps >doesn't know enough to make up their own mind. I will >support regulation that says that someone with 200 jumps >doesn't know enough to make up their own mind, because for >the most part they don't. >As long as there is a way for them to prove they are >competent and test out, than a regulation such as this can only >help the situation. There is no denying that someone with 100 > jumps should not be jumping a 1.5 to 1 wingload without >serious training and even then it is still risky. >I can sit in a classroom with you all day and teach you about >how to safely take my motorcycle out on the track, but until >you have done a lot of laps around that track, you are a >danger to yourself and the others around you. All we are >saying is start out on a small manageable bike before you take >an open class unforgiving sport bike out there. >Lots of people have talked about regulations taking away your > personal right to choose as a low timer, but nobody has come >up with any substantial negatives to making people wait until >they know a little more before they get in over their head. Taking classes does not represent a change in his behavior. He's doing it without the pressure of regulation. The bold print in his reply is my emphasis. I want to be in the "regulation for thee but not for me" camp with you. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markbaur 0 #208 June 20, 2003 QuoteRemember, the current proposal won't impact any current canopies. Why not? I don't recall grandfathering anybody with respect to pull altitudes. If some jumpers are using canopies unsuited to their weight and experience, why let them continue? Because it would be too expensive for them to be safe? Statistically, they are more likely to be injured or killed on their next jump than to go any number of jumps and then get killed or injured. How expensive is that? Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #209 June 20, 2003 I know, I was answering him. Ron"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 #210 June 20, 2003 The end result of all of this is simple... Oren with 1400 jumps, me with 2,900, and you with 4,000 are not the ones getting killed. It is the guys with 100-500 jumps. If you, me , and Oren were dying...Then I would be trying to regulate US...But we are not, they are. I don't buy into the "you are an adult...do what you want" group. To be a member of ANYTHING means that you sacrifice some personal freedoms for the good of the group. And to be honest I can't think of a single orginization that is involved in ANY activity that does not have some basic saftey rules. These rules were put in place to PROTECT the group. Ron"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
kallend 1,623 #211 June 20, 2003 QuoteQuoteSo if people die it doesn't matter how, we'll just make up new arbitrary rules and feel better about it? This knee-jerk approach makes me feel worse, not better. Nathaniel. It does matter how they die. That's how we've gotten to this point. The rule is not arbitrary. It has basis in total experience. Jump numbers is the method for determining some background. In order to accumilate 500 jumps you need to have been around a bit. Look at Tandem ratings. You need to have been around awhile so they say 500 jumps AND 3 years in the sport. Since higher wingloadings may not be as complex as Tandem jumping the jump number requirement will have some effect on when someone will be able to get a higher WL. Will this cure everything. Sure as hell not. But it most definitely will have an effect. A good one I think too. Skydivers think we need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to flying. We don't. We mearly have to look at how pilots are certified for flying high performance and complex planes and recognize that we as humans have limitations. There are times where we need more education to do something different. No one is born knowing how to fly. We have to be taught. And that teaching comes in blood. It is the result of years of broken bodies. Are you going to listen to me now Nathaniel? How many years have you been in this sport or in aviation (if you are a pilot) total? What have you seen? Chris - there are a lot of possible parameters that affect fatalities and injuries under canopy. They include: Experience Training Gender Age Personality type Substance abuse Sleep deprivation Reaction time Visual acuity Eye-hand coordination Large and small motor skills Physical conditioning and probably things I haven't thought of. I am AGAINST this proposed BSR for the simple reason that it ASSUMES jump number is the single determining factor, without anyone actually having bothered to look and see if any other factors are, in fact, causal or more relevant. Any analysis that has been done is at best SUPERFICIAL. The numbers in the proposal have no basis in anything more scientific than someone's gut-feeling. This is NOT the way to make rules. Finally, rules to protect people from themselves are notoriously unsuccessful. JK, 1220 jumps, WL 1.4, age 57... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pkasdorf 0 #212 June 20, 2003 1,3 and 265 jumps. Some regulation is needed without going to extremes. It is absolutely clear that even with education people do very dangerous and silly things. One has to have the freedom to do dangerous and silly things if one wants to? NO! Why? Because it may endanger other fellow skydivers and affects our public image, which is important to keep us enjoying our sport with a minimum of external interference. HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #213 June 20, 2003 >Chris - there are a lot of possible parameters that affect fatalities and >injuries under canopy. They include: >Experience >Training >Gender >Age . . . Yep. And you could make exactly the same list of things that affect a person's ability to pull at 2000 feet, or of things that affect a person's ability to do a demo. Yet we still have simple jump number limits for those activities. Based purely on fatality stats, those SUPERFICIAL rules that ASSUME jump numbers mean something (your emphasis) seem to work. >The numbers in the proposal have no basis in anything more scientific >than someone's gut-feeling. Neither does any other BSR. We operate primarily on gut feel in this sport. When I teach it's how I decide to pass someone. When I ground someone, I decide that based primarily on gut feel. If I had to rationalize every decision I made as S+TA based on provable, reproducable results, I wouldn't be as effective - and at least two people would be dead by now. >Finally, rules to protect people from themselves are notoriously unsuccessful. That's been proven to not be true when it comes to aviation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 259 #214 June 20, 2003 Quoteand perhaps the number of people who by virtue of being older and perhaps having increased outside responsibilities are not as likely to desire to increase their acceptable risk level.. as i said to be meaningful everyone SHOULD post jump #s /WL (ie will it affect you) age / # of responsibilities (to determine if you are someone who is likely to desire to "push the envelope") I'm 38, unemployed and have an adult son who can take care of my 2 dogs if anything happens to me. I have good medical insurance and three fused vertebrae. My gear is the most expensive thing I own. 930 jumps over 13 years, currently flying a 1.0-1.1 wingloading. I plan to still be jumping when I'm 58. My choice of canopy and wingloading was made with this in mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #215 June 20, 2003 QuoteExperience Training Gender Age Personality type Substance abuse Sleep deprivation Reaction time Visual acuity Eye-hand coordination Large and small motor skills Physical conditioning and probably things I haven't thought of. Yes, and that's why people need time in this sport to identify issues they have personally. They need to see more. Every year since I've been in the sport (1995) Parachutist has run the annual fatality report and every year it is a hot topic that people are killing themselves under perfectly functioning canopies. 8 years of questioning. How can you say this is superficial? I think some people get a bit hung up on the numbers and forget that each number is a human being. The airlines strove for 0 passenger fatalities and have actually achieved that goal in recent years. Not consecutively but it has happened. Why can't that same effort be made in skydiving. There's regulation for recurrent training. And you have to be type rated on each plane you fly. Why is that such a hard concept in skydiving? You must recieve training to fly any canopy you fly. It's regulated that way. In this proposed BSR you can do the training early or you can wait until you meet the jump number requirement. If you really feel that this BSR is bogus I expect you to try and repeal the 500 jump requirement for people to be Tandem Masters. You state that jump numbers mean nothing. How can you let this injustice stand? I know you won't but I'm trying to make a point. Jump numbers is an accepted form of judging experience in this sport. We are currently raising our D license requirement to 500 jumps to get the license. Why? Because we recognize the sport is not the same as in past years. I agree change for changes sake is bad. But in this case change is necessary or we will continue to see many people every year becoming quadraplegics or killed because they are flying canopies beyond their ability and jump numbers.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #216 June 20, 2003 Quote*** The airlines strove for 0 passenger fatalities and have actually achieved that goal in recent years. Not consecutively but it has happened. Why can't that same effort be made in skydiving. There's regulation for recurrent training. And you have to be type rated on each plane you fly. Why is that such a hard concept in skydiving? You must recieve training to fly any canopy you fly. It's regulated that way. Are you seriously suggesting that skydiving should be regulated in the same way as commercial aviation? I think most skydivers would take up some other pastime if that came to pass. Quote In this proposed BSR you can do the training early or you can wait until you meet the jump number requirement. If you really feel that this BSR is bogus I expect you to try and repeal the 500 jump requirement for people to be Tandem Masters. False comparison - that rule is not to protect the TM, it is to protect the "passenger". Quote You state that jump numbers mean nothing. How can you let this injustice stand? I know you won't but I'm trying to make a point. Jump numbers is an accepted form of judging experience in this sport. We are currently raising our D license requirement to 500 jumps to get the license. Why? Because we recognize the sport is not the same as in past years. I agree change for changes sake is bad. But in this case change is necessary or we will continue to see many people every year becoming quadraplegics or killed because they are flying canopies beyond their ability and jump numbers. I didn't say jump numbers "mean nothing", I said that no serious study has been done that identifies jump numbers as the prime culprit. This rule may be "fixing" the wrong problem. What purpose is served by having a "D" under the new rules? All the privileges previously conferred seem to remain at 200 jumps. Bogus comparison again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #217 June 20, 2003 Quote>Chris - there are a lot of possible parameters that affect fatalities and >injuries under canopy. They include: >Experience >Training >Gender >Age . . . Yep. And you could make exactly the same list of things that affect a person's ability to pull at 2000 feet, or of things that affect a person's ability to do a demo. Yet we still have simple jump number limits for those activities. Based purely on fatality stats, those SUPERFICIAL rules that ASSUME jump numbers mean something (your emphasis) seem to work. No, there are jump number rules AND other criteria. Quote >The numbers in the proposal have no basis in anything more scientific >than someone's gut-feeling. Neither does any other BSR. We operate primarily on gut feel in this sport. When I teach it's how I decide to pass someone. When I ground someone, I decide that based primarily on gut feel. If I had to rationalize every decision I made as S+TA based on provable, reproducable results, I wouldn't be as effective - and at least two people would be dead by now. >Finally, rules to protect people from themselves are notoriously unsuccessful. That's been proven to not be true when it comes to aviation. So you'd like gun-toting security guards checking our canopy size before we board the plane? Anyway, I disagree. Every year hundreds of people kill themselves flying VFR into IMC, doing inadequate preflight inspections, failing to have adequate fuel and doing buzz jobs, contrary to the FARs.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #218 June 20, 2003 John, I completely disagree with everything you said. You say regulation doesn't help. I say it does. Look at the airlines. They strove to get 0 passenger deaths in a year by regulating training. It worked. So how can you say it won't work here? No, we don't need regulation to the level that the airlines have. That's silly. But there are things we can do in this sport to improve it and guide new jumpers. This BSR is one of them. We regulate that student must have RSLs and that other jumpers are encouraged to have them except in certain situations. Why is this so hard to conceive that a regulation can't help? Well John, I guess you have your work cut out for you. Would you please do the statistics for fatalities for the past 10 years and tell us what percentage of canopy/landing fatalites were people under 500 jumps to how many over. Tell me that the percentage below 500 jumps is not higher than above 500 jumps and I will reverse my view.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #219 June 20, 2003 Quote Remember, the current proposal won't impact any current canopies. and of course thats another issue. shouldnt we be wary of passing a rule that you dont want applied to EVERYONE? why is someone with 400 jumps @ 1.8 OK now but after the proposed BSR the next guy to get 400 jumps isnt?? what if the rule were written so that it applied to EVERYONE? ie Mr. 12,000 jumps has to pass the same skills test that mr 300 does to fly the same wingloading?? would everyone still be for it??..even though it meant that they might take away the "toys" you feel its your right to fly by virtue of jump numbers alone?? what if the rule says ANY significant change of wing type requires testing??? after all your 800 jumps on that lightly loaded spectre might not have taught you much about flying the VX88 you just bought... but when you make a mistake, and lots of people make mistakes 1000s of jumps or no.. and hook it in trying a turn you havent practiced enough under a wing your no where near current on....your in the "its ok incidents" because with 800 jumps your a skydiving adult?? Quote... If you really feel that this BSR is bogus I expect you to try and repeal the 500 jump requirement for people to be Tandem Masters. theres another straw man again.. TM's have passengers, airlines have passengers, buses have passengers, all are commercial enterprises and so are and should be regulated differently from a sport particularly in ascpects that really only involve a single participant.. IE what you fly____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #220 June 20, 2003 Quotetheres another straw man again.. TM's have passengers, airlines have passengers, buses have passengers, all are commercial enterprises and so are and should be regulated differently from a sport particularly in ascpects that really only involve a single participant.. IE what you fly You calling me skinny? Wait a cottin pickin minute. You jump in the same air I do. What you jump IS important to me since you could collide with me if it is beyond your ability to control yourself. It absolute IS my business.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #221 June 20, 2003 QuoteJohn, I completely disagree with everything you said. You say regulation doesn't help. I say it does. Look at the airlines. They strove to get 0 passenger deaths in a year by regulating training. It worked. So how can you say it won't work here? No, we don't need regulation to the level that the airlines have. That's silly. But there are things we can do in this sport to improve it and guide new jumpers. This BSR is one of them. We regulate that student must have RSLs and that other jumpers are encouraged to have them except in certain situations. Why is this so hard to conceive that a regulation can't help? Well John, I guess you have your work cut out for you. Would you please do the statistics for fatalities for the past 10 years and tell us what percentage of canopy/landing fatalites were people under 500 jumps to how many over. Tell me that the percentage below 500 jumps is not higher than above 500 jumps and I will reverse my view. 1. I didn't say training and education wouldn't work. I didn;t even say regulation won't work. I said that this proposal is poorly constructed and shouldn't become a BSR because it may be attacking the wrong problem. 2. Every airline accident is minutely examined for cause. Regulations grew out of those examinations. The proposed BSR does not have the same status - it has not come about on account of detailed examination of accident causes. Even your suggestion is inadequate, because you left wing loading out of the equation. The available stats from USPA don't include WL, so how can anyone say that they know definitively that WL is the issue. How would you feel about a new FAR based on the gut-feeling of some FAA bureaucrat that males under 30 shouldn't be airline captains? How do your 59 year old colleagues feel about the age 60 retirement rule that was based on no safety analysis? Is someone really going to change canopy size every 100 jumps to go progressively to a 1.5WL at 500? Not a chance. People will simply make a large increase in WL when they get to 500 jumps, and maybe the fatalities will be moved around but not change. Maybe the BSR will encourage people like me (still happy at 1.4 at 1200 jumps) to downsize faster because 1.5 must be safe if it is enshrined that USPA says it's OK when you have 500 jumps. Maybe this BSR will actually increase fatalities - we just DON'T KNOW. There are altogether too many unknowns with THIS proposal. It needs more work to become acceptable.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 259 #222 June 20, 2003 Quoteshouldnt we be wary of passing a rule that you dont want applied to EVERYONE? why is someone with 400 jumps @ 1.8 OK now but after the proposed BSR the next guy to get 400 jumps isnt?? For the same reason the guy with 200 jumps today is getting his D license and the guy who gets to 200 jumps next year will have to wait until he has 500. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #223 June 20, 2003 >No, there are jump number rules AND other criteria. What are the other criteria that allows an A licensed jumper to pull at 2000 feet, or requires a D licensed jumper to pull at 2500? >So you'd like gun-toting security guards checking our canopy size >before we board the plane? Please take the games to rec.skydiving, if you prefer them to discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #224 June 20, 2003 QuoteQuoteshouldnt we be wary of passing a rule that you dont want applied to EVERYONE? why is someone with 400 jumps @ 1.8 OK now but after the proposed BSR the next guy to get 400 jumps isnt?? For the same reason the guy with 200 jumps today is getting his D license and the guy who gets to 200 jumps next year will have to wait until he has 500. The "D" license is just a piece of paper. What you can do with a "D" this year you will be able to do with a "C" next year, so in reality the jump number change is just cosmetic.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #225 June 20, 2003 QuoteNo, there are jump number rules AND other criteria. What other criteria about pull altitudes? Ron"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
