MotherGoose 0 #26 February 27, 2009 Those are both good questions : QuoteWhat's happening to personal responsibility? Is it personal when another human is attached to you? Just wondering. I'm struggling with this topic in my own head. If we attach joy-riders to us, is it not then an applicable situation to apply "universal" rules? QuoteBy the way, is there a big difference in the number of tandem head injuries between the countries with these opposing mentalities? That's similar to my question earlier, what are the numbers? Again, maybe this is a bullshit topic, I just can't come to a conclusion for myself, which is why I'm looking here to get all the angles. I hope others respond.You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheCaptain 2 #27 February 27, 2009 I could understand the benifits to wearing a helmet if skydiving helmets actually did something to protect your head. I mean a Gath, Z1 evo I could crush in my hand so what real protection do they offer. I use to wear a helmet on every tandem for my first 800 tandems and then I just stopped for the most part. I really do not see a ton of advatage to wearing one (outside of a protec) other than noise reduction and giving a place to put an audioable altimeter in.Kirk He's dead Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 0 #28 February 27, 2009 Universal rules? Like, no passengers under 18yrs, no night jumps, no tandem demos, all rules the USA has, and we do not? When we have quite a lot of rules already but have not had a incident/problem which would've been prevented by any of the above rules? However we DID move up our requirements for TMs: they need 1000 jumps instead of the 500 jumps most countries require, this seems to have had quite an effect on our number of tandem incidents lately. ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MotherGoose 0 #29 February 27, 2009 That is all part of the discussion Saskia, I asked : QuoteThat's similar to my question earlier, what are the numbers? Again, maybe this is a bullshit topic, I just can't come to a conclusion for myself, which is why I'm looking here to get all the angles. I hope others respond. I just wanted to know, what are the rules in each country and what are the effects of those rules. Helmet YES or NO? Lots of tandem instructor helmet-related injuries YES or NO? Everyone is SO against rules, but it is only by incident and rule amendment, that we have gotten to where we are today, which includes your example of increasing the T.I. jump minimum to 1000. This was obviously a "rule" derived from statistical data from around the world. I say again, this topic may very well be bullshit, if it is to you, then move on. If there is more real input into the subject, I'd love to hear it.You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #30 February 28, 2009 Quote This was obviously a "rule" derived from statistical data from around the world. You could not have been more wrong than with that statement... As far as I know the rule chance that brought the Netherlands towards 1000 jumps minimum for tandem instructors was derived from ONE actual incident and some worries about ONE other person. Analysis of statistical data from around the world? This was a policy and as usual that is not something where there is any real thought proces involved! Needles to say that several years later some guy who was well "within the new margins" (+2200 jumps if memory serves correct) also dropped the ball in the eyes of the powers that be... Now THAT was an incident / anecdotal evidence, of course... Nowadays (with everybody screaming for TI's at every DZ - the ones that are still open that is) voices can be heard to somehow reverse the situation and go back to the 500 jumps minimum that seems to work so well year after year in the USA, a country where there are serious legal issues if you want to have a prosperous business in jumping out of airplanes with "2 jumpers / 1 parachute" and do it with less than qualified staff... The problem we are confronted with is that young and eager skydivers could be starting with a camera somewhere in their second or third season (say 200 jumps) then make a whole bunch of jumps that are paid for by others and after two intense seasons like that they could start with tandem - at least if they enjoy being barfed upon, having sweaty grown up males sitting on their lap and lifting refrigerators to the top floor of a building - just for the exercise... The good news being of course that your jumping pays for itself mostly, which is nice since you - being an average Joe - have a girlfriend who wants you to start a family and doing tandem allows you to have your cake and eat it to, so to speak... OTOH if you manage to make say 700 jumps in these two 'formative years' in stead of the normal 300 / 350, you either have an extremly well paying job or a nice little inheritance. In both cases you don't realy need the money you can make with tandems and thus the big sweaty male on your lap that didn't sound attractive to begin with becomes less and less atractive... If you like most people take a bit longer to reach the 1000 jump goal (a respectable 125 jumps per year would still mean 8 years down the road from your first jump on) you are five years older and (ever so often) with a kid. Now that is great to build up arm muscles but kids don't mix that well with spending every weekend at a dropzone. Having a kid also leads to interesting moral questions like "shall I make another skydive or buy shoes for my kid?" and that all in all leads to less-than-125-jumps-a-year. Finally, being at least five years older when you begin as a tandem instructor means that you are not as physically indistructable as you were five years ago. Carrying 10 or even 20 refrigerators upstairs is no longer your idea of a fun way to spend a weekend, whereas five years ago you could pull that off AND dance around the Bonfire most of the night... A system with less jumps when you start out but a more intense training (i.e. a longer training period on the tandem system with more jumps) before you are let loose on the public - including higher standards with people occasionally FAILLING the course - seems to me the direction the industry should head... Also, most army's and police forces around the world have minimum physical requirements and without saying what the minimum body length or the minimum weight lifted/pulled ought to be, one can get a class 3 medic by making it into the doctors office without support of crutches, a wheelchair or a nurse... O and per definition TI's are supposed to make judgement calls on parachuting safety. So please let them if they want to decide for themselves if a helmet is worth the hassle. For me personally, seeing an opening parachute is already limited by the sweaty bloke in front of me, so anybody telling me that I should do so wearing a full face can go play somewhere else... (But indeed, a frap hat FOR ME is the way to go nowadays, since that riser slapped my ear and removed my dytter from my goggle...) "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
MotherGoose 0 #31 February 28, 2009 ...have you considered writing a book ??!! You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
inextremis 0 #32 February 28, 2009 Same with UPT and Sigma, manufacturer recommends soft helmets for both instructor and student. I wear one mostly to maximize my chances of getting my student (and me) out of an airplane that has crashlanded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LavaLady 0 #33 March 3, 2009 In 2007 the International Parachuting Commission (IPC) conducted a Protective Headware Survey. The results of this survey were compiled in a report and presented to the IPC and provided to parachuting National Sporting Organisations that are members of the IPC. Below is an extract of how the survey came about and was conducted. (taken from the cover letter) A) BACKGROUND AND AIM OF SURVEY During 2007 the matter of the requirement for ‘Protective Headwear’ arose, in the context of this being a condition for entry in a competition (an FAI First Category Event). Some debate arose as to what constituted ‘Protective Headwear’ and what regulations exist in various countries, as law and/or as regulation by the National Sport Parachuting Organisation or Association. The IPC’s Technical & Safety Committee undertook to collect information on this matter, to: 1-Make countries aware of what others do and how they regulate; 2-Help set standards based on experience and requirements of others; 3-Act as a guide for skydivers considering visiting other countries. B) RESULTS OF THE SURVEY The results of the survey are presented 31 countries supplied information. The information supplied was on the basis of: 1-Requirements under national law (government regulations) 2-Requirements of the National Sports Parachuting Organisation Information was sought also on the basis of: A-Type of Jumper B-Parachuting disciplines An examination of the information supplied shows quite wide difference in the requirements of the various National Sport Parachuting Organisations. It is also apparent that National Sport Parachuting Organisations are to the fore in safety regulation as regards headwear, in that while 27 of the 31 responding countries have requirements set down by their NSPOs, only 13 have requirements in law. In some instances the national law-making authority defers to the NSPO in the area of protective headwear use. It is hoped that the survey results may be of interest and of some help, especially to those who may review their requirements in this area, or who may wish to set a standard where none already exists. I am unable to post the entire document here but the results should be accessible from each parachuting national sporting organisation/federation. As the Technical Officer of the Australian Parachute Federation (and yes we took part in the survey), this info was provided to our members at our annual conference. I would imagine personnel in similar positions would have this report. In regard to the tandem student/tandem instructor protective headware question, of the 31 countries that responded: 18 require some sort of headware for the Students (described as ranging from cloth or leather hats to hard shells) 14 require some sort of headware for the TI. (described as ranging from leather hats, any type to hard shells) of course as a 2007 survey, this info might now be out of date. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MotherGoose 0 #34 March 3, 2009 Thank you very much for this information !You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #35 March 5, 2009 Yes, I tried that once, while wearing a Pro-Tec. I suffered a concussion, broken nose, dis-located shoulder, etc. But the key thing is that I limped away. The guy that was only wearing a leather hat will never fully recover. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deadwood 0 #36 March 6, 2009 I really don't wear a helmet so much for the jump as I do for the airplane crash.He who hesitates shall inherit the earth. Deadwood Skydive New Mexico Motorcycle Club, Touring Division Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #37 March 12, 2009 I have a lot of stiff legged students that cram my head into the top of the Otter doorway. I appreciate my hard helmet. Had a hard landing after a canopy collapse on a tandem once. Felt my fraphat bouncing in the rocks, decided to switch to a hard hat if I lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
