billvon 2,396
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
sducoach 0
Quote
I was undecided at first, but the more I think about it the more firmly I come down in the "education" rather than "regulation" camp, mostly because you folks haven't made a convincing case for why your numbers are the right numbers except to say that Brian knows his stuff, nor have you come up with any kind of implementation or enforcement plan.
PS 1212 jumps, Stiletto 150 @1.4
Kallend,
I suggested the term "educate or regulate" some time back and it still stands true. As far as your comments concerning numbers my friend, all you need to do is go back 10-15 years and look at fatality causes. It moved from equipment problems to judgment problems. In days gone by you rarely saw an instructor in a fatality report simply due to the fact they regularly teach EMP's. Now you see all kind of rating holders busting themselves up due to poor training, education, or judgment.
Back to basics boys........... Educate or Regulate.
Blues,
J.E.
3200 jumps, Vengeance 107 @ 2.0:1
Stiletto 135 @ 1.6:1
James 4:8
sducoach 0
Ron, You are starting to argue just like BillyVon. He should be a politician as they can argue with anyone, fill a page full of unrelated comments, twist your questions into questions instead of answers, and they are always right.
One wise man once said..... "only a fool argues with a fool".
Educate or Regulate.
Blues,
J.E.
James 4:8
sducoach 0
Chris, You know as well as I do that we must educate or regulate. Mark's comments on speed, Bill's arguments on the space shuttle are all based upon a "frame of reference" that is known only by the person experiencing the situation. A shuttle pilot will feel like your RJ is a slow little pig flying around the sky while a C-182 pilot will feel like he's riding a rocket in your RJ.
How do we move peoples "frame of reference" without gaining experience the old fashion way? (Experience is something you gain AFTER you have survived a situation where you needed it.)
Educate.
Everything else is just an argument for education.
Blues,
J.E.
James 4:8
sducoach 0
Quote
There are no such parameters. Canopy injuries and fatalities are not caused by lack of reaction time, they are caused by lack of skill.
This contradicts your point about the space shuttle, does it not?
As skill increases (through education) speed of execution, reaction time, does increase.
Blues,
J.E.
Sorry Mark...................
James 4:8
kallend 1,623
Quote
Quote
I was undecided at first, but the more I think about it the more firmly I come down in the "education" rather than "regulation" camp, mostly because you folks haven't made a convincing case for why your numbers are the right numbers except to say that Brian knows his stuff, nor have you come up with any kind of implementation or enforcement plan.
PS 1212 jumps, Stiletto 150 @1.4
Kallend,
I suggested the term "educate or regulate" some time back and it still stands true. As far as your comments concerning numbers my friend, all you need to do is go back 10-15 years and look at fatality causes. It moved from equipment problems to judgment problems. In days gone by you rarely saw an instructor in a fatality report simply due to the fact they regularly teach EMP's. Now you see all kind of rating holders busting themselves up due to poor training, education, or judgment.
Back to basics boys........... Educate or Regulate.
Blues,
J.E.
3200 jumps, Vengeance 107 @ 2.0:1
Stiletto 135 @ 1.6:1
I don't think that anywhere I have suggested that people are not killing themselves under perfectly good canopies - in fact on my own web site I have a graph showing fatality trends over the last 12 years that indicates this pretty clearly.
What I am arguing is that the proponents of regulation have not made the case that it's low-time jumpers under small canopies that are responsible for this trend, yet that is who their regulation is targeted at. My concern is that we will have a whole new layer of regulation with extra responsibilites stuck to DZOs and S&TAs, which may be targeting the wrong group entirely.
...
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.
1.8 W/L 550 Jumps
If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!
Ducky 0
Occasionaly Darwin should be allwoed to step in and take over.
kwak
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 2,396
>You are starting to argue just like BillyVon. He should be a politician as
> they can argue with anyone, fill a page full of unrelated comments, twist
> your questions into questions instead of answers, and they are always right.
Naah, if I was a politician I'd just agree with you, promise you that fatalities will go down and you won't have to do a thing, and then blame someone else when they don't.
>One wise man once said..... "only a fool argues with a fool".
Heh.
>Educate or Regulate.
It is not a choice between those two. Unfortunately sometimes it takes regulation to get education. I would like to believe that it doesn't, but I still have a feeling that no one would get wet water training if it wasn't required.
> they can argue with anyone, fill a page full of unrelated comments, twist
> your questions into questions instead of answers, and they are always right.
Naah, if I was a politician I'd just agree with you, promise you that fatalities will go down and you won't have to do a thing, and then blame someone else when they don't.
>One wise man once said..... "only a fool argues with a fool".
Heh.
>Educate or Regulate.
It is not a choice between those two. Unfortunately sometimes it takes regulation to get education. I would like to believe that it doesn't, but I still have a feeling that no one would get wet water training if it wasn't required.
I don't think a wingloading BSR is necessary. What problem is it really addressing?
The ISP specifically addresses canopy control.
If skydivers are making dangerous decisions flying/buying their canopy the S&TA ought to be taking some action. Seems to me that the education and regulation has been covered in the SIM.
Ken Flanagan
1.4 wl 470jumps
USPA coach, Senior Rigger
The ISP specifically addresses canopy control.
If skydivers are making dangerous decisions flying/buying their canopy the S&TA ought to be taking some action. Seems to me that the education and regulation has been covered in the SIM.
Ken Flanagan
1.4 wl 470jumps
USPA coach, Senior Rigger
"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken
Ken
Ron 7
All good points Tony....
Question for you...
If these people you see at 500-9,999 jumps took a canopy control class...Would it make them better?
If some of these people were on bigger canopies...would it make them safer?
If some of these people didn't downsize so fast...would they have learned more?
Ron
Question for you...
If these people you see at 500-9,999 jumps took a canopy control class...Would it make them better?
If some of these people were on bigger canopies...would it make them safer?
If some of these people didn't downsize so fast...would they have learned more?
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Not worthless at all. You may indeed not learn Clint's "delicate site picture" but if you learn the basics of not killing yourself under a HP canopy, that's 90% of the battle. If you can prevent that, you can learn on your own - or get Clint, your choice. It would be bad if people avoided canopy control training because they could not get the one instructor that they want to swoop like.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites