Ron 7
Recommended Posts
Zenister 0
QuoteThe problem is most new jumpers don't think they can fail.
They don't have the EXPERIENCE to know that it can happen.
They have never EXPERIENCED anything like it.
so basically we need regulation to make people recognize the laws of physics still apply??
shouldnt that be done in high school?
why is it the USPA's responsibility to inform people that when you fall down you can get hurt? that when you fall down at a high rate of speed you can be hurt very badly?? that any time someone you know gets killed its emotionally tramatic and maybe you should think about that before you put your friends and familly in that possible position?
why is the USPA responsible for making skydivers understand the basic facts of life???
if someone hasnt learned that by age 16 or so..their parents must have REALLY kept them on to short a leash
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Ron 7
Quotewhy is the USPA responsible for making skydivers understand the basic facts of life???
No, but to protect them till they realize that they are not bounce proof...Yes.
We already do it now.
But we now have a new problem, and the old ways are not fixing them.
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
wmw999 2,119
Quoteso basically we need regulation to make people recognize the laws of physics still apply??
shouldnt that be done in high school?
Learning something, and having enough instances of experience with it for it to sink in for the general population, are two entirely different things. After you learn addition, they make you practice it, right? And show that you can apply it in a number of different situations.
Education can take the place of experience, but in life-threatening situations, one or the other should be present.
The idea is to try make sure that basic canopy piloting skills are present in people who don't have a very big bag of experience. Yes, it's for their protection and ours. If there weren't a disproportionate number of misjudged landings for one reason or another among younger pilots, then there wouldn't be a perceived need for this protection.
So maybe the onus should be on the pilots to get the education. Have you asked anyone with a high-ish wingloading if they've taken a canopy control class?
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)
billvon 2,391
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>why is it the USPA's responsibility to inform people that when you fall down you can get hurt?
"The United States Parachute Association . . . promotes safe skydiving through parachuting training, rating, and competition programs. USPA represents parachute jumping from aircraft and helps keep skydivers in the air."
From their mission statement.
>why is the USPA responsible for making skydivers understand the
>basic facts of life???
The basic facts of life do not include the myriad details required to land a high performance canopy safely. They do not even include enough knowledge to realize how much you don't know about what it takes to safely land a HP canopy. If it were that easy we'd cover it in the FJC.
"The United States Parachute Association . . . promotes safe skydiving through parachuting training, rating, and competition programs. USPA represents parachute jumping from aircraft and helps keep skydivers in the air."
From their mission statement.
>why is the USPA responsible for making skydivers understand the
>basic facts of life???
The basic facts of life do not include the myriad details required to land a high performance canopy safely. They do not even include enough knowledge to realize how much you don't know about what it takes to safely land a HP canopy. If it were that easy we'd cover it in the FJC.
mikkey 0
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")
granted there are most probably older people with kids who DO desire to fly napkins, that may (are more likely too) kill them, but they are few in number.
everyone calling for regulation should look at their personal reasons for wanting to "be safer" & "take less risks" and realize not everyone else has those same reasons, and may want to push the envelop farther than others think sane...
So experience and age is a bad thing? Skydiving should be as risky and unsafe as possible - then it is more fun?? Give me a break.
Yes, people who are older / have more jumps seem to be more concerned about this issue. But not just because they have more responsibilities e.g. kids. There are a number of reasons:
1) It gets depressing to see people die and unsafe jumpers are not just a danger for themselves. It does affect your enjoyment of the sport. Not all of us think it is "cool " if the sport is more dangerous then necessary.
2) High fatality and injury rates do affect the sport negatively: Insurance, potential regulations, hostility towards DZ's by the community, pressure by family etc.
3) I like to see more people getting into the sport. That increases the opportunities to jump (more jumpers, more DZ's, bigger planes, cheaper equipment etc.etc.).
Making it a sport for people that just "want to push the envelope" is IMO stupid.It is an aerosport like flying and I for one like to make it as safe as possible.
If you like to perform an activity in order to "push the envelope" and demonstrate what a cool guy you are, I suggest you go out somewhere isolated and do some free climbing - by yourself. Or if you have to jump - do some BASE - by yourself.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
Zenister 0
QuoteIf you like to perform an activity in order to "push the envelope" and demonstrate what a cool guy you are, I suggest you go out somewhere isolated and do some free climbing - by yourself. Or if you have to jump - do some BASE - by yourself.
you seem to think its all about being cool, which of course perhaps it is for some, but i give a rats ass if you or anyone else thinks it 'cool' or not..
I do freeclimb (when i'm 'current' climbing)
and will BASE in the near future..
skydiving was apparently once about finding & pushing your personal limits and the limits of what the "you cant do that its INSANE" wuffos thought couldnt be done as well..to bad to many people with "grandmothers mentalities" have taken over in the interests popularity and profit. how sad.
by the tone of your post i guess your goal is to . . .
Please try to keep to discussing the issue rather than speculating on what other people's goals are.
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
mikkey 0
Your answers show the opposite of what yoy are claiming here.Quoteyou seem to think its all about being cool, which of course perhaps it is for some, but i give a rats ass if you or anyone else thinks it 'cool' or not
QuoteI do freeclimb (when i'm 'current' climbing)
and will BASE in the near future..
skydiving was apparently once about finding & pushing your personal limits and the limits of what the "you cant do that its INSANE"
"Apparantly" - how do you know. Skydiving became a "sport" with a broad base when it stopped being a dangerous "stunt" and it become a structured "sport" with better and safer equipment and rules.
Now this just shows your . . .Quote
wuffos thought couldnt be done as well..to bad to many people with "grandmothers mentalities" have taken over in the interests popularity and profit. how sad.
Please try to keep this discussion civil without resorting to insults.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
mwolfe 0
A friend told me about this thread and I felt compelled to read. It is amazing how, as OKALB stated, those with lower jump numbers are adament about being able to jump higher wing loadings. I believe that education through regulation is a good idea here. Why?, because the current system does not work! How many of these people who are proponents of "freedom" have seen anyone they know or care for make a mistake under a highly wingloaded canopy? It is ugly at best and tragic more times than not. Time in sport seems to be a very humbling factor.
As long as there is an option to test out, no intelligent person should oppose something that would make skydiving a safer place for all involved.
Can you make your canopy land (stop) where you want it to ALL the time?
1400 jumps, [email protected] under a 170 and now @1.4
As long as there is an option to test out, no intelligent person should oppose something that would make skydiving a safer place for all involved.
Can you make your canopy land (stop) where you want it to ALL the time?
1400 jumps, [email protected] under a 170 and now @1.4
cloud9 0
Ok guys lets get serious for a moment. I’m against any new regs but by all means for safety in our sport. I can’t argue against life saving regs. Since I don’t think I’m alone, how about we try this.
When we sign log books we read what was written, we make student and low time jumpers really do the requirements for their license. Including landing within the parameters of their perspective license rating. I think we would find that they wouldn’t be able to downsize; and if they could then they probably would be ok under that canopy.
Now lets get real for a second, very few drop zones and very few students really meet the requirements for their respective licenses. Water jumps, landing within a parameter, RW skills night jumps all or some of these are fudged on many I say again many license applications.
Also DZ’s are going to have to at least make an effort. I have been to 4 drop zones this year (2003) and not one asked me my wing loading, or what kind of main I was jumping. Now perhaps in their defense they figure if you have a D you can jump anything you want, but hey that wouldn’t fit in the wing loading BSR would it.
So as you can see this is so much deeper then a new BSR, which is why I’m so against it. As of this date the only thing I see coming from the new proposal is some people will feel better, hey I did what I could. That’s not going to make a difference.
As for those of you that care, please keep caring we’re all better for it!
When we sign log books we read what was written, we make student and low time jumpers really do the requirements for their license. Including landing within the parameters of their perspective license rating. I think we would find that they wouldn’t be able to downsize; and if they could then they probably would be ok under that canopy.
Now lets get real for a second, very few drop zones and very few students really meet the requirements for their respective licenses. Water jumps, landing within a parameter, RW skills night jumps all or some of these are fudged on many I say again many license applications.
Also DZ’s are going to have to at least make an effort. I have been to 4 drop zones this year (2003) and not one asked me my wing loading, or what kind of main I was jumping. Now perhaps in their defense they figure if you have a D you can jump anything you want, but hey that wouldn’t fit in the wing loading BSR would it.
So as you can see this is so much deeper then a new BSR, which is why I’m so against it. As of this date the only thing I see coming from the new proposal is some people will feel better, hey I did what I could. That’s not going to make a difference.
As for those of you that care, please keep caring we’re all better for it!
markbaur 0
QuoteOnce 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.
Mark
Quote
Your argument about people leaving skydiving if they can't jump a 1.8 canopy until they have 501 jumps is utter bullshit..
So we can regulate them however we want, and it doesn't matter they will all stay in the USPA? The point is not that one rule will collapse the USPA, it's that bad rules are bad. It doesn't matter if we already have other bad rules (or not). I would like to keep the number of bad rules to a minimum.
Quote
Dead bodies are EXACTLY how we get to BSRs. Again, hang out for a while and learn what you're talking about.
So 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.
Give me a good reason the rule will lead to fewer fatalities and you will be talking to a proponent. Give me the same promises that it will lead to fewer fatalities without logic to back it up and I remain a skeptic.
nathaniel
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
okalb 78
QuoteQuoteQuoteOnce 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.
Mark
If you are going to quote me, I would appreciate it if you quote the whole thing. You have just proven that you are not worth discussing this with any further.
Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana
To me these aren't arguments for this proposed BSR. They are great arguments for things like separate swooping areas (enter at your own risk), sleep therapy / counseling, release waivers, etc.
You're assuming the proposal would lead to fewer fatalities... IMO fewer fatalities is one of several possibilities together with no effect on fatality rate and increased fatality rate. I think no effect is the most likely result.
No effect on the overall fatality rate, that is. Maybe an effect on the low-jump# pocket rocket fatality rate, but to reiterate a point I made several posts up I don't think it's right to say some kinds of fatalities are "better" than others.
Several people have been alluding to actions by other regulatory agencies eg FAA...am I missing something? Has the FAA or anybody besides the people on this board brought the subject up? not including the usual cast of people that think skydiving should be banned in general...
nathaniel
You're assuming the proposal would lead to fewer fatalities... IMO fewer fatalities is one of several possibilities together with no effect on fatality rate and increased fatality rate. I think no effect is the most likely result.
No effect on the overall fatality rate, that is. Maybe an effect on the low-jump# pocket rocket fatality rate, but to reiterate a point I made several posts up I don't think it's right to say some kinds of fatalities are "better" than others.
Several people have been alluding to actions by other regulatory agencies eg FAA...am I missing something? Has the FAA or anybody besides the people on this board brought the subject up? not including the usual cast of people that think skydiving should be banned in general...
nathaniel
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
skybytch 259
QuoteThe point is not that one rule will collapse the USPA, it's that bad rules are bad. It doesn't matter if we already have other bad rules (or not). I would like to keep the number of bad rules to a minimum.
Which of the BSR's do you feel are "bad" rules? Give reasons.
What makes you think any regulation will go into effect without months if not years of debate at the board level?
What are YOU going to do to make sure that a "bad" rule isn't put into effect?
QuoteGive me a good reason the rule will lead to fewer fatalities and you will be talking to a proponent. Give me the same promises that it will lead to fewer fatalities without logic to back it up and I remain a skeptic.
Reread the other threads on this subject. There have been plenty of reasons already posted.
Personally, I'm more about reducing the number of landing injuries than the number of deaths. Too many injured jumpers never get back in the air, and watching someone screw themselves up is a rather unpleasant experience.
Sorry, but I can't understand how anyone who gives a shit about their fellow skydivers and the sport in general could NOT support USPA doing something to reduce the number of landing injuries and deaths.
Oh yeah. 930 jumps, 13 years in the sport, a bunch of ratings, 7 years selling gear, 1.0-1.1 wingloading.
Kris 0
Excellent response, Lisa.
Nathaniel, it has been stated time and time before, "The BSR's are written in blood."
If things keep going at the rate they are, we'll have more than enough blood to have a new one written for this.
~300 jumps, 5 years in sport this Sep, 1.35:1 wingloading, and I am for regulation.
Nathaniel, it has been stated time and time before, "The BSR's are written in blood."
If things keep going at the rate they are, we'll have more than enough blood to have a new one written for this.
~300 jumps, 5 years in sport this Sep, 1.35:1 wingloading, and I am for regulation.
Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™
markbaur 0
QuoteOnce again you have no idea what you are talking about. I have 1400 jumps and jump a heavily loaded velocity and I have just organized a group of 6 people INCLUDING MYSELF from my dz to go to Deland and take Scott Miller's canopy class. Do I feel I need to change what I am doing....no, but there is always more to learn.QuoteThanks for reinforcing my point. You want other people to change what they are doing; you don't want to change what you are doing yourself.
I don't think my condensation of your post affected its thrust, but I include it now in its entirety.
In all of these related threads, I can recall only one person saying he would give up the canopy he was jumping in order to comply with a new regulation. There may be others, but my point still remains: of all the folks who are in favor of regulation, how many would have to change something they are doing now in order to comply?
Ron says no one would have to -- they'd all be grandfathered, because it wouldn't be fair to make them buy canopies more suited to their education and experience.
If you are going to a canopy class now, it isn't because a regulation requires it, it's because you think it is a good idea. You are doing what you want to do, and you don't want to change (and I wouldn't want you to change, either!). Is there more to learn? Absolutely! You and I agree on that.
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?
Mark
okalb 78
QuoteBUT... 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?
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.
Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana
I think I have misspoken for I did not mean to disparage the current set of BSRs... I apologize for the confusion--this is not what I meant to convey. It is in fact my esteem for the current set of BSRs that gives me pause when new ones are proposed.
nathaniel
nathaniel
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
billvon 2,391
>BUT... Would you support a WL regulation that required you to buy a different canopy?
Personally? If it was something that I thought was a good tradeoff between regulation and saving lives - yes, I would.
>Or one that made swooping and swoop contests less glamorous?
Glamour does not enter into my considerations when it comes to regulation in skydiving.
> Would you support a WL regulation that required you to do something different than you're doing now?
Again, if it was a good balance - yes.
Personally? If it was something that I thought was a good tradeoff between regulation and saving lives - yes, I would.
>Or one that made swooping and swoop contests less glamorous?
Glamour does not enter into my considerations when it comes to regulation in skydiving.
> Would you support a WL regulation that required you to do something different than you're doing now?
Again, if it was a good balance - yes.
Ron 7
QuoteAlso DZ’s are going to have to at least make an effort. I have been to 4 drop zones this year (2003) and not
one asked me my wing loading, or what kind of main I was jumping. Now perhaps in their defense they figure
if you have a D you can jump anything you want, but hey that wouldn’t fit in the wing loading BSR would it.
Well, right now there is nothing in place for them to check against.
And to be honest it WOULD fit in...The new"D" is 500 jumps...so it would fit in really nice.
QuoteSo as you can see this is so much deeper then a new BSR, which is why I’m so against it. As of this date the
only thing I see coming from the new proposal is some people will feel better, hey I did what I could. That’s
not going to make a difference.
No, it will prevent people from getting high wingloads with out experience or classes with proven performance...
How can you not see that?
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
The problem is most new jumpers don't think they can fail.
They don't have the EXPERIENCE to know that it can happen.
They have never EXPERIENCED anything like it.
Most jumpers in the 100-300 jump range think they are 10 feet tall and bounce proof...I did, and in fact I should have bounced at least once, and did smack the ground quite hard another time. After all they have jumped 300 TIMES...Geeze that seems like a lot...Until you get 500...Then 1,000...I bet there are a lot of guys that think my 2,900 is nothing.
I have no problem with a guy that wants to do swoop landings. As long as he is willing to go to classes, and LISTEN to what people have to say to him.
That is why I support Regulation WITH education...I know that education is the true answer...Now how do I get these people to understand they need it?
The problem is that MOST don't know they don't know what they are doing. They are the "one". They are "skilled above their jump #'s". These are the ones that say..."Jump numbers are meaningless ways to tell skill."
Fact is it is a very good way. Not 100% mind you, but nothing is. If I was planning a jump and a guy with 100 jumps wanted on and a guy with 500...9 out of 10 I would bet that they guy with 500 would be the better bet. Yes not always, but 9 out of 10 times it is the right choice.
And never forget no amount of training replaces skills that are earned with experience...Training can help you learn faster, but you still need experience.
Regulation will make them get training, or they will have to wait...and gain experience while they wait.
Ron
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites