livendive 8 #26 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuote Just one man's opinion. Make that two men's opinions, because I agree... Accept the same fee for all passengers - and only accept the passengers that are 1) Safe to jump with, 2) Appropriate for you to jump with... That's a nice thought. In practice it means the TI who's willing to go heavy is worn out sooner, makes fewer jumps and less money as a result, and goes through more jumpsuits from the higher-speed landings. Nice reward for being so accomodating, eh? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #27 October 12, 2006 QuoteTo me; it's the same as the guy who's your size who had to carry the same size rucksack as me in the Army getting paid more cause his percentage of ruck to weight ratio was seriously disparate to mine? No. He "chose'" to carry it. The thing is when I was in the Army I carried more than guys that were smaller than me. I knew big guys that carried more than me. You don't give the M240 to the 100 pound guy if you want him to last on the march. QuoteIt's kinda like AFF - Instructors are taught; if you can't slick or weight down enough to stay with your student, then hand them off. There is a big difference between taking a big tandem guy vs taking a big AFF guy. QuoteAnd, I'll leave it with a safety question. 'At what point does one decide they should "stand down" if there is a financial incentive not to do so?' And that is a great question. I don't think it is more dangerous to the *student*. So then the choice becomes up to the individual instructor. I have never gotten paid for a bigger passenger and I have taken some big folks. I am just not opposed to the TI who works harder and takes the bigger risks getting compensated for it."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
Liemberg 0 #28 October 12, 2006 QuoteI am just not opposed to the TI who works harder and takes the bigger risks getting compensated for it. But these are two different things. It could be that it is smarter NOT to penalize the relativly overweight passenger, reduce the TI's pay for the smallest passengers (ducking, hiding - where did I leave my asbestos pants? ) and use that money as a premium for the lightweight tandemmaster taking the larger passenger, all the while not overloading the system... Then you would have an incentive to take the big guys and nobody would feel discriminated. BTW: I have a scale and use it on occasion. AND people lie about their weight when they want to make the parachute jump... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #29 October 12, 2006 QuoteAnd, I'll leave it with a safety question. 'At what point does one decide they should "stand down" if there is a financial incentive not to do so?' Just one man's opinion. I never never allow money have a say in my safety. This was discussed on a previous thread. The poster there said the TM would override his limits if he would be rewarded financially to do so. Therefore, he recommended no financial incentive to take heavier students. I don't like that suggestion because that implies it is someone else's responsibility to police my limits. Personally, I think that is ridiculous. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #30 October 12, 2006 My DZ has a scale, with "Lie Detector" written on it in black sharpie marker. They have a 225 weight limit, and they don't charge a fat tax if they decide the conditions are ok for a couple of pounds over their normal limit."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #31 October 12, 2006 I see THAT I see as problematic. Explaining to a tandem student they aren't "fit" enough. I've seen people who came to watch someone jump that I prayed they weren't jumping as I knew they'd get the "no way, Jose" speech. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreenMachine 0 #32 October 12, 2006 I am sometimes shocked when normal sized people have trouble lifting their legs or squatting to practice an exit.Rigger, Skydiver, BASE Jumper, Retired TM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #33 October 12, 2006 I agree people need to be fit enough to skydive, but that would based on performance more than body mass. I'm okay with our 220# limit, but I do not look forward to telling the 5'1" 190# person they aren't fit enough to skydive. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done -- I just don't want to do it. The 220# rule is posted on our website. There would be few surprises for the rejection of the 240# fatty. I can't say that about the short tubby person that is less than 220#. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #34 October 13, 2006 QuoteIncreased workload for the TI. I work harder with a 200 pound guy than I do with a 100 guy. I have to move them in the plane, sometimes carry them to the door...ect. And there is an increased risk of me getting hurt landing with a guy that is 200 pounds than a guy a 100 pounder. I have a lot of respect for almost everything you write about skydiving, Ron. Your comments about device dependency jumping with an AAD in particular have made me think hard. What you write about tandems and the reason for weight limits seems so 180 degrees from the other stuff you talk about. If a student is at additional risk because they are too heavy why take them? Clear enough. You say it's not them at risk, but you. If you're at additional risk you'll take them but only if you get paid extra? That just nuts to me. AFF instructors don't charge extra if a student is heavy even though they may choose to wear weights. The weights make for a faster / harder landing and increase the risk of injury.... unless you can find a way to suggest that a higher wing loading isn't riskier. So why are just the tandem students being charged more? If the risk to anyone involved with the skydive is increased either the student shouldn't be going or the instructor should be accepting the risk to self or not. The student risk should never be a matter of money. An instructor should never be motivated by money to accept extra risk.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #35 October 13, 2006 QuoteI have a lot of respect for almost everything you write about skydiving, Ron. Your comments about device dependency jumping with an AAD in particular have made me think hard. Well...Thanks. QuoteIf a student is at additional risk because they are too heavy why take them? Clear enough. You say it's not them at risk, but you. If you're at additional risk you'll take them but only if you get paid extra? I think you misunderstood me. I don't just take people if I get paid extra. From up thread "So then the choice becomes up to the individual instructor. I have never gotten paid for a bigger passenger and I have taken some big folks. I am just not opposed to the TI who works harder and takes the bigger risks getting compensated for it." I have never made money off of taking a bigger passenger. I have refused to jump with certain people do to my belief that it was unsafe for them, or for me. But I do have the luxury of not needing the paycheck. Some notable students I refused to take: 1. An underage Tandem Student. It was when the FAA dropped the 18 rule, but the Tandem makers had not yet said no yet. I just was unwilling to take the financial risk involved with an under 18 Tandem student. 2. A few really out of shape passengers. 3. A girl that spoke only Spanish. She had not been through any course and had no idea what to do. I could not speak to her to teach her, so I found a TI that spoke Spanish to teach and take her. QuoteThe student risk should never be a matter of money. Agreed, I would never take a dangerous student for money. QuoteAn instructor should never be motivated by money to accept extra risk. Agreed, but I am not OPPOSED to letting others make that call for themselves. If a person wants to take additional wear and tear on their body for more money it is not any business of mine. It is also not my concern if a guy will take the extra risk for free. Again his or her choice. For me, I will jump what students I feel are safe for both of us and refuse to jump with anyone I do not think is safe. I hope all that made sense....Its 5:23AM and I just got off work."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
Mickochet 0 #36 October 14, 2006 Extra wear on the gear more work and added risk for the TM.If you never fall down you aren't trying hard enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,042 #37 October 14, 2006 We disagree on points 1 & 3. Especially 3. How does any more dollars mitigate the risk?Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #38 October 14, 2006 I agree with you, price of a tandem is a flat rate. Fat tax is sleazy. I'm getting paid to do something I'd do for free, hell I pay to jump. Getting paid to see the expression on students face makes it all worthwhile. I don't give manifest a tip for giving me a smoking hot chick, why should I get a bonus cause I get a heavy person. I'm a professional. I take the good with the bad and know my limitations. The weight limit is based on the gear being used and whether or not I feel I can handle the student. I've taken Spanish speaking people when I had an interpretor and felt they understood enough. I've taken people well into the 200+ lb range and used every trick I know to land them. I'm 5 foot 4 inches tall and 180 lbs in great shape. The day I can't handle a particular student is the day I say no to manifest. Personally it is not the chubs that make me concerned, it is the 7 foot 10 inch serf boards that screw me. They go flat or flail their limbs all to one side...its like jumping with a sheet of plywood in your hands. However saying a heavy person deserves an extra fee is not right. Take it a bit further: Okay, I'm gonna jump you Mr./Mrs Student. If the jump is anything more than my idea of of a perfect no hassle jump, upon landing you may be required to pay an additional stupid/fat/flailing/can't get your legs up/puking fee. I just don't see it. Cops don't get paid extra to arrest "dangerous" criminals. Students are either good enough to jump or not. Extra cash don't make it so. MHO. Peace. And Ron, I also respect much of what you say as well.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 October 14, 2006 I know we like the exaggerated comparisons to prove a point on DZ, but come on. It's not about showing that 200lb'ers are riskier than 100lb'ers on landing. No kidding. (a few TMs tell me the uncooperative little girls are scarier on the exit and FF). It's what's the difference in risk between 199 and 220? One is free, the other might be $40 more. If it's really about risk, you would have some higher rate starting lower, say around 170. Of course, then you'd piss off most of your customers, not just a chunk of them. Do these guys tip you after paying the fat tax? BTW, the scale is important - making sure the weight load is within limits for both the gear and the plane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
schechter 0 #40 November 12, 2006 Do you really think tandem students 300 would get to jump at all if someones not getting paid for it.?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
packerboy 3 #41 November 12, 2006 Pardon my french, but charging a fat tax is fucking bullshit! It's either safe or it is unsafe. You do it or you don't so it. It's damn right discriminitory. Just because it is less pleasant or more wor for the TI is not a good reason. They don't charge you extra at the convenience store to buy a chocolate bar if you are ugly, because it is less pleasant for the cashier. They don't charge extra for the cashier to point out where the gum section is because it is more work. You offer a service at a price, and ANY person who is able to to indulge in that service pays the same price period. Wah Wah.. it costs more for gas... well cry me a f%^&king river. So you make less profit and have more customers do the friggen math. FUCK it pisses me off to no extent that DZ's do this. Just like it pisses me off when someone tells me I have to pay extra to use my VISA card because it costs them more. Well that's the cost of doing buisiness... suck it up princess. I weigh 135 lbs by the way.. do I get charged less because I don't take up as much gas. Get real man.. you might as well be charging people more because they are black, it makes as much sense. -------------------------------------------------- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SwampThing 0 #42 November 12, 2006 There was a time that question had a whole different connotation! The Pessimist says: "It can't possibly get any worse!" The Optimist says: "Sure it can!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
packerboy 3 #43 November 12, 2006 Haha, no doubt! -------------------------------------------------- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #44 November 12, 2006 QuoteHaha, no doubt! But not Canadian! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 122 #45 November 12, 2006 QuotePardon my french, but charging a fat tax is fucking bullshit! It's either safe or it is unsafe. You do it or you don't so it. It's damn right discriminitory. hmmmm this logic infers that a pack job on a (heavyweight) tandem rig should be the same cost as a pack job on a (lightweight) sport rig?Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites packerboy 3 #46 November 12, 2006 all sport rigs are them same, all tandem rigs are the same (price wise) Do packers charge more if you have a new slippery canopy (more work)? Or charge more for a Sigma vs. a Vector (more work)? Or charge more for a 210 vs a 135 (more work)? No they do not. Apples and Oranges. If tandem students are oranges, than the large ones are still oranges.. big ones, but still oranges. I don't feel it's wrong to discriminate against rigs. I feel that Mirages are inferior rigs to Vectors.. does that make me a bigot. No. I feel that fat people should pay more for the exact same service as skinny people. Is that discriminatory? Yes, it absolutely is. -------------------------------------------------- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billeisele 122 #47 November 13, 2006 I feel that fat people should pay more for the exact same service as skinny people. Is that discriminatory? Yes, it absolutely is. the apples and oranges deal doesn't fly - they are both fruit just like 2 parachutes - one parachute is just significantly larger than the other, so why discriminate against the large parachute? maybe because it is a lot more work to pack is heavier and has more components it is not about fat people, it is about weight, most of the folks we see at our DZ that are over 200 lbs are tall or just big guys, taking 3 light folks is about the same as 2 heavies so at the end of the day there is a difference for us it was a way to even out the workload and to reward those that did the most work, not sure if it is the best solution but it seems to workGive one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
packerboy 3 #46 November 12, 2006 all sport rigs are them same, all tandem rigs are the same (price wise) Do packers charge more if you have a new slippery canopy (more work)? Or charge more for a Sigma vs. a Vector (more work)? Or charge more for a 210 vs a 135 (more work)? No they do not. Apples and Oranges. If tandem students are oranges, than the large ones are still oranges.. big ones, but still oranges. I don't feel it's wrong to discriminate against rigs. I feel that Mirages are inferior rigs to Vectors.. does that make me a bigot. No. I feel that fat people should pay more for the exact same service as skinny people. Is that discriminatory? Yes, it absolutely is. -------------------------------------------------- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 122 #47 November 13, 2006 I feel that fat people should pay more for the exact same service as skinny people. Is that discriminatory? Yes, it absolutely is. the apples and oranges deal doesn't fly - they are both fruit just like 2 parachutes - one parachute is just significantly larger than the other, so why discriminate against the large parachute? maybe because it is a lot more work to pack is heavier and has more components it is not about fat people, it is about weight, most of the folks we see at our DZ that are over 200 lbs are tall or just big guys, taking 3 light folks is about the same as 2 heavies so at the end of the day there is a difference for us it was a way to even out the workload and to reward those that did the most work, not sure if it is the best solution but it seems to workGive one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
packerboy 3 #48 November 13, 2006 Parachute argument aside.. tandem passengers are people, not objects. If you are out to "haul meat" then tell manifest that you would only like premium sirloin tips.. Tandem canopies generate WAY more profit to a DZO than sport canopies, so they pass the profit down to it's employees. A tandem passenger who weighs a few pounds more cuts in to the profit marginally, and you pass that cost on to the customer?? I started a thread a long time ago about customer service and what businesses provide the best and worst service in this industry. I got a lot of replies with fantastic stories from L+B, Alti-2, PD, RW, Sunpath, etc. In my opinion DZ's that charge fat tax are on the opposite list, right below ASC/Skyride and Para-Gear. Shitty ass customer service skills is what it boils down to. I could care less what airplanes, world class coaches, and boogies these places have.. I wouldn't spend a dime there. If I had the ambition.. I would try to bring a page up the list on a google search about weight and skydive, which I'm sure heavy people serch for, that let's large people know that they don't have to put up with a fat tax, that there are respectable places out there that don't charge extra and direct them there. Instead I'll just bitch about it here. On top of the fat tax, why not add a "large plane" tax or "gear rental" fee, or "extra altitude" tax? Oh yeah, everybody knows that would be wrong... -------------------------------------------------- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #49 November 13, 2006 Are you a TI? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NSEMN8R 0 #50 November 13, 2006 Dude, you seem to feel pretty strongly about this. Did you used to be fat? I don't see any problem with a fat tax. If you're fat, it costs more to make the jump and it's more work for the TI. Why shouldn't you pay your fair share? Is it society's fault they're fat so we should all pay the same? I don't believe everyone should be treated as equals unless they are. I take most of our heavies. I've worked with some guys that won't take them because of their own size or abilities and some that won't just because they're lazy fucks and they know I'll do it if no one else will. Why should they make the same money as those of us that will put forth the extra effort? (and it DOES take some extra effort!) What if we stopped calling it a "Fat Tax"? Would a "discount for lightweights" be more acceptable? We wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
