kallend 1,623
Recommended Posts
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>You are saying that because it was not done right in the old days, we
>shouldn't do it right in 2003?
No. I'm saying that performing peer reviewed scientific studies is not the way to 'do it right' in skydiving. It's not how the 300 way was designed. It's not how ram-air parachutes were designed. It's not how the AFF program was developed. It's not how S+TA's decide who to ground. They use their intuition, an intuition born of long experience, experience rooted in jumping over the years. I know, you have little respect for such experience, but it has stood our sport in good stead for many, many years. Smart people with experience, in general, make good decisions, even if they don't have PhD's, and even if they don't do statistical analyses of fatality trends.
There are several solutions to this problem. A few have been proposed. The cost of doing nothing is skydivers dying. The cost of a plan that's OK but not 100% effective is that it might be annoying to some jumpers (to exactly the jumpers that it attempts to keep from death BTW) while saving only half of them. That's a pretty good tradeoff in my mind - 5-10 fewer fatalities a year.
If your point is that we should come up with a good plan, I agree. If your point is that no skydiver has any sort of intuition that can predict who will die and who will not, and what will keep those people safer, then you're not in the same sport that I'm in.
>shouldn't do it right in 2003?
No. I'm saying that performing peer reviewed scientific studies is not the way to 'do it right' in skydiving. It's not how the 300 way was designed. It's not how ram-air parachutes were designed. It's not how the AFF program was developed. It's not how S+TA's decide who to ground. They use their intuition, an intuition born of long experience, experience rooted in jumping over the years. I know, you have little respect for such experience, but it has stood our sport in good stead for many, many years. Smart people with experience, in general, make good decisions, even if they don't have PhD's, and even if they don't do statistical analyses of fatality trends.
There are several solutions to this problem. A few have been proposed. The cost of doing nothing is skydivers dying. The cost of a plan that's OK but not 100% effective is that it might be annoying to some jumpers (to exactly the jumpers that it attempts to keep from death BTW) while saving only half of them. That's a pretty good tradeoff in my mind - 5-10 fewer fatalities a year.
If your point is that we should come up with a good plan, I agree. If your point is that no skydiver has any sort of intuition that can predict who will die and who will not, and what will keep those people safer, then you're not in the same sport that I'm in.
Zenister 0
QuoteQuoteso is what i drive..but i can go get that huge SUV, my dodge or a Ferrari and drive right next to you in the
interstate without the additional licenses you need to be driving the school kids...its not a commercial enterprise.
apples and oranges..
Don't most states have a seperate permit for motorcycles?
Why? Because people were getting killed on them.
And the tandem argument is very good....Why don't you guys bitch about the 500 jump and 3 years for them?
Or the 6 hrs of freefall for AFF?
Or the 500 jumps to get a PRO?
Or the D to do larger demo's
Or Pull altitudes? After all its your body right?
uh duh..no
thanks for building the straw pile larger..
all of those involve passengers, students and/or specators, other peoples lives you are assuming responsibility for..just like the bus
motorcycles have a license because it a different skill set than an automobile but once you get your license for that vehicle you can ride ANY SIZE you wish...
can we put the strawman on the fire now?? hes done..
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
kallend 1,623
Quote>You are saying that because it was not done right in the old days, we
>shouldn't do it right in 2003?
No. I'm saying that performing peer reviewed scientific studies is not the way to 'do it right' in skydiving. It's not how the 300 way was designed. It's not how ram-air parachutes were designed. It's not how the AFF program was developed. It's not how S+TA's decide who to ground. They use their intuition, an intuition born of long experience, experience rooted in jumping over the years. I know, you have little respect for such experience, but it has stood our sport in good stead for many, many years. Smart people with experience, in general, make good decisions, even if they don't have PhD's, and even if they don't do statistical analyses of fatality trends.
There are several solutions to this problem. A few have been proposed. The cost of doing nothing is skydivers dying. The cost of a plan that's OK but not 100% effective is that it might be annoying to some jumpers (to exactly the jumpers that it attempts to keep from death BTW) while saving only half of them. That's a pretty good tradeoff in my mind - 5-10 fewer fatalities a year.
If your point is that we should come up with a good plan, I agree. If your point is that no skydiver has any sort of intuition that can predict who will die and who will not, and what will keep those people safer, then you're not in the same sport that I'm in.
Mandatory AADs will save lives too - and we have good data to back up that claim. Where do you propose to stop?
...
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.
billvon 2,400
>Mandatory AADs will save lives too - and we have good data to back
>up that claim. Where do you propose to stop?
No pull fatalities are going down due to increasing voluntary use of AAD's. Under-good-canopy fatalities are going up due to inability to control small parachutes. Use regulation only where needed to have a significant impact on fatalities.
>up that claim. Where do you propose to stop?
No pull fatalities are going down due to increasing voluntary use of AAD's. Under-good-canopy fatalities are going up due to inability to control small parachutes. Use regulation only where needed to have a significant impact on fatalities.
kallend 1,623
Quote>Mandatory AADs will save lives too - and we have good data to back
>up that claim. Where do you propose to stop?
No pull fatalities are going down due to increasing voluntary use of AAD's. Under-good-canopy fatalities are going up due to inability to control small parachutes. Use regulation only where needed to have a significant impact on fatalities.
It has to be the right regulation, and no-one has convinced me that this is the right one.
...
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.
Quoteuh duh..no
thanks for building the straw pile larger
Your condescending tone is not appreciated and not helping this debate. These are serious people trying to do something serious for the sport. Let's all try to remember that we are all skydivers and we all hate seeing our brothers and sisters broken in a field. There are going to many answers to this question and an effort to educate along with regulate is probably the best answer. We need to do both in my book. Many schools have taken it seriously to give quality canopy control education while in early student status. Too many DZs have not.
Another analogy I'd like to point out from the world of aviation is that stunt pilots flying high performance acrobatic aircraft normally can only do them high off the ground. The airshows that you see where pilots doing acrobatics close the ground must have special permission from the FAA. When you fligh that high performance canopy in a high performance landing you are effectively doing an acrobatic manuever. What qualifies you to do that? A pocketbook?
Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125
billvon 2,400
>It has to be the right regulation, and no-one has convinced me that
>this is the right one.
I have posted an alternative in a different thread.
>this is the right one.
I have posted an alternative in a different thread.
QuoteMandatory AADs will save lives too - and we have good data to back up that claim. Where do you propose to stop?
We act where we feel we need to act. In this case many feel we need to act. It's not a majority. But it isn't a small minority either.
Zenister 0
QuoteQuoteuh duh..no
thanks for building the straw pile larger
Your condescending tone is not appreciated and not helping this debate.
understood but when i see the same argument misapplied again and again and with some nice condescention shots as well "its your body right?" i tend to argue in kind..
Quote
Another analogy I'd like to point out from the world of aviation is that stunt pilots flying high performance acrobatic aircraft normally can only do them high off the ground. The airshows that you see where pilots doing acrobatics close the ground must have special permission from the FAA. When you fligh that high performance canopy in a high performance landing you are effectively doing an acrobatic manuever. What qualifies you to do that? A pocketbook?
do you know if this is because to the proxmity to the ground (ie could you practice such manuevers over your own large private property?) or because to the large crowd of potential "victims" if you make a mistake. much the same as our current Demo regs?
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Scrumpot 1
Quotedo you know if this is because to the proxmity to the ground (ie could you practice such manuevers over your own large private property?) or because to the large crowd of potential "victims" if you make a mistake.
Acrobatic maneuvers are limited based upon their proximity to spectators & certain airspace, not by strictly AGL measurments I believe.
Chris would (or should) have better knowledge of the FAR's than I however.
coitus non circum - Moab Stone
Ron 7
Quotemotorcycles have a license because it a different skill set than an automobile but once you get your license for that
vehicle you can ride ANY SIZE you wish...
Not in TN....
You could get a <125cc license till you became old enough to get a regular motorcycle license.
Same thing here except we want to use experience insted of age.
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Ron 7
QuoteAcrobatic maneuvers are limited based upon their proximity to spectators & certain airspace, not by strictly
AGL measurments I believe.
There is a AGL limit...I think its 1500 feet, but I have not done any Acro in 7 years.
You are not allowed to do it lower even if you are over a large bit of your own land, and there is not even a cow there.
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Zenister 0
which, if true, and i do not doubt because i dont know means barnstorming and the mindset that sees its value is completely dead.
to me that is a sad thing.
to me that is a sad thing.
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Ron 7
Barn Storming is not dead..I had a friend of mine loop right into the ground by his house while his friends and wife watched about 3 years ago.
But a loop at 2000 feet takes the same amount of skill as a loop at 500 feet....just less cost for a screw up.
My old Acro instructor Billy Whitehurst use to say "Fly 3 mistakes high".
Ron
But a loop at 2000 feet takes the same amount of skill as a loop at 500 feet....just less cost for a screw up.
My old Acro instructor Billy Whitehurst use to say "Fly 3 mistakes high".
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuotemotorcycles have a license because it a different skill set than an automobile but once you get your license for that
vehicle you can ride ANY SIZE you wish...
Not in TN....
You could get a <125cc license till you became old enough to get a regular motorcycle license.
Same thing here except we want to use experience insted of age.
Ron
Maybe age is a better indicator of accident inducing behavior.
...
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.
Ron 7
QuoteMaybe age is a better indicator of accident inducing behavior.
Or maybe its experience? An 18 yo has been driving longer than a 16 yo.
And experience tells you to cut your risk taking...or at least approach it from a better angle.
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
All of this talk about the low jump numbered people and regulating canopy sizes, MANY people who are over the 500 jumps shouldn't be on what they are jumping anyway. My parachute is a Spectre 7-cell 120 and I load it at a maximum of 1.5. (with any weight and or full camera setup) This, now-days is considered slow, big, conservative, whatever you want to call it. The reality is this parachute will allow me to do things that could kill me or anyone who may be under it if they are not landing it very close to the way, and direction it should be. This size,shape, and wing-loading, again, is considered light ESPECIALLY for my number of jumps. I have also noticed that I can't find anyone posting here that seems to think THEY need any sort of regulation. It's always someone else. Some have done canopy class, but few would ever admit they might not be as good at canopy control as they should be (I think these people are mostly flying faster parachutes) In the last 4.5 years, I have done over 5000 jumps on the SAME canopy make and model, I am still surprised every once in a while when I'm flying this parachute that I do something not quite right and have to flare a little quicker than normal, can't do a front riser turn because my set up isn't right, have to land farther out than I want, some of this comes from trying new things with it and I learn something more about the canopy-and I have A LOT of time under this particular model. Yes- I still try new things with it and learn new thing with that many jumps on it. Most people seem to have certain criteria to help them justify a size they want- for example: Can I land it in someones backyard? Most say yes but most would be screwed if they had to. I know I would if I ended up in the wrong backyard. Do you ever practice getting into a tight area? how low can you turn and how quick can you stop? I know sometimes it's uncool not to swoop but once you figure out you can be a good pilot and NOT swoop this may be a step toward everyone being better at flying around in a busy sky and a stable-unmoving ground. Take a good look at your ability, forget the ego, and in my opinion, many people are not willing to admit that they could screw up bad enough to kill themselves or someone else. --My faster canopy experience is about 600 jumps on a sabre 97, 1000 on a stiletto 97, then 2500 jumps on a stiletto 120, and the last 5000 on my spectre 120's. Am I way off here? -Tony
My O.C.D. has me chasing a dream my A.D.D. won't let me catch.
You are saying that because it was not done right in the old days, we shouldn't do it right in 2003?
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites