riggerrob 558 #151 October 29, 2012 Quote... and putting her in an "out of spec" traffic flow, where she belonged. Quote Sounds like a simple enough solution to me. ......................................................................... On many ocassions, manifest called me to inspect a student. I leaned my head in the hangar door and quickly concluded that the student: was an "armchair athlete," "needed commercial license plates", "burned diesel," "was under-tall for her weight," etc. ... frowned, shook my head "No" and wandered off. That was the end of that student's skydiving career. We need more TIs who know when to say "No." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #152 October 29, 2012 Quote Quote ... and putting her in an "out of spec" traffic flow, where she belonged. Quote Sounds like a simple enough solution to me. ......................................................................... On many ocassions, manifest called me to inspect a student. I leaned my head in the hangar door and quickly concluded that the student: was an "armchair athlete," "needed commercial license plates", "burned diesel," "was under-tall for her weight," etc. ... frowned, shook my head "No" and wandered off. That was the end of that student's skydiving career. We need more TIs who know when to say "No." And tandem factories that will accept such a decision without firing the TI for making it. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #153 October 29, 2012 Quote Quote Which is a critical point: We have as an industry swept this under the rug for far too long; the assembly line factory tandem operation is widespread throughout the country and to stick our heads somewhere dark and blame it all on Bill and his TI is to perpetuate the fundamental problem: a "one-track" tandem system when what we need is a two-track" system that differentiates from the check-in counter on between "in spec" and "out of spec" students, to wit: those of normal age, weight, body shape and infirmities (none); and those who fall outside of "normal" for any of those criteria. In the case in question, the customer was way out of spec for each criterion, yet she was placed in the normal student flow, and the TI "tried to make it work" instead of cutting away from that student immediately and putting her in an "out of spec" traffic flow, where she belonged. Quote Sounds like a simple enough solution to me. Except Cost to much $$$$$ Why could that extra cost not be passed onto the "special needs" passenger? If done properly the extra costs for the time required could be negated versus a "normal" passenger. Factories gain their efficiencies and maintain quality by using identical parts. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites linebckr83 3 #154 October 29, 2012 Not disagreeing with your points, because these are things that do need to happen. But I also believe this specific student could have been taken on a skydive safely without almost falling out of her harness (and dare I say it, even without a y-mod). While she should have been turned down, the TI is equally to blame for doing a shitty job. Blame where blame is due."Are you coming to the party? Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!" Flying Hellfish #828 Dudist #52 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #155 October 29, 2012 Quote Not disagreeing with your points, because these are things that do need to happen. But I also believe this specific student could have been taken on a skydive safely without almost falling out of her harness (and dare I say it, even without a y-mod). While she should have been turned down, the TI is equally to blame for doing a shitty job. Blame where blame is due. Absolutely she could have been taken safely -- by following the "out of spec" protocol -- which must begin at the check-in counter, not at the TI level, where he's on a 15-minute call and is expected by the system to "make it work." Yes, he made a poor decision by doing that, but he was "set up to fail" by a one-track system -- and that is what needs to be fixed system-wide. The "in spec" / "out of spec" concept needs to become industry standard, period. Full stop. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Krip 2 #156 October 29, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Which is a critical point: We have as an industry swept this under the rug for far too long; the assembly line factory tandem operation is widespread throughout the country and to stick our heads somewhere dark and blame it all on Bill and his TI is to perpetuate the fundamental problem: a "one-track" tandem system when what we need is a two-track" system that differentiates from the check-in counter on between "in spec" and "out of spec" students, to wit: those of normal age, weight, body shape and infirmities (none); and those who fall outside of "normal" for any of those criteria. In the case in question, the customer was way out of spec for each criterion, yet she was placed in the normal student flow, and the TI "tried to make it work" instead of cutting away from that student immediately and putting her in an "out of spec" traffic flow, where she belonged. Quote Sounds like a simple enough solution to me. Except Cost to much $$$$$ Why could that extra cost not be passed onto the "special needs" passenger? If done properly the extra costs for the time required could be negated versus a "normal" passenger. Factories gain their efficiencies and maintain quality by using identical parts. Hi B Me badMY cost to much $$$$$ comment , was based on the $$$ lost due to one less Student by the end of the day. R. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #157 October 29, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Which is a critical point: We have as an industry swept this under the rug for far too long; the assembly line factory tandem operation is widespread throughout the country and to stick our heads somewhere dark and blame it all on Bill and his TI is to perpetuate the fundamental problem: a "one-track" tandem system when what we need is a two-track" system that differentiates from the check-in counter on between "in spec" and "out of spec" students, to wit: those of normal age, weight, body shape and infirmities (none); and those who fall outside of "normal" for any of those criteria. In the case in question, the customer was way out of spec for each criterion, yet she was placed in the normal student flow, and the TI "tried to make it work" instead of cutting away from that student immediately and putting her in an "out of spec" traffic flow, where she belonged. Quote Sounds like a simple enough solution to me. Except Cost to much $$$$$ Why could that extra cost not be passed onto the "special needs" passenger? If done properly the extra costs for the time required could be negated versus a "normal" passenger. Factories gain their efficiencies and maintain quality by using identical parts. Hi B Me badMY cost to much $$$$$ comment , was based on the $$$ lost due to one less Student by the end of the day. R. We have a winner. In addition to one less student by the end of the day, it may become more than that because "out of spec" students may require manifest juggling in order to accommodate them and that can ripple through the assembly line. However, that cost pales in comparison to the DZ and overall sport cost of having another customer slip out of a harness or otherwise get injured or killed because they are out of spec but not treated as such. Perhaps the premier "out of spec" TI in history is Jim Wallace, who counts more than 20,000 student-related jumps among his I-don't-know-how-many-he-has-now total, thousands of which are tandems, and more than 200 of which were out-of-spec passengers he called "fragile packages" (old people, paraplegics, quadraplegics, the morbidly obese and people with serious illnesses, et al). Jim would not only schedule them for a specific time, he would take them up only in essentially perfect tandem conditions (stable wind in the 7+ mph range) and allot considerably more time for briefing them, prepping them, getting them into the airplane -- and getting them out of the airplane. Plus, he had one specific rig that opened softer than his others and he always used that one. These are the kinds of accommodations every factory system needs to use, and as you can see from Jim's process, it starts not when the customer is handed to the TI on a 15-minute call, with other already-manifested loads already backed up on him, but when the customer first calls. In sales, this is called "pre-qualifying" the prospect, and in this case, the sales person can tick off the in spec/out of spec questions and know even before the customer shows up the assembly line to which they must be assigned. It is not that hard to do, just a little pre-planning and procedure writing, then follow it. The big issue, though, is changing the attitude and mindset of the factory operations to understand that this two-track system is needed. Yes, almost anyone can make a tandem, but not everyone can make a routine, one-size-fits-all tandem because when it comes to people, they are not all one size. As soon as our factory operations get that through their heads -- and adapt their assembly lines accordingly, the chances of incidents such as the one in question will drop to near zero. And yes, it may cost a DZ a little more in short-term $$ to accommodate out of spec customers, but they also benefit in two ways: 1) Treating out of spec customers differently is insurance against a mishap such as the incident in question; and 2) Out of spec customers often generate enough publicity to attract enough extra customers to more than make up for the one that cost a bit more to cycle through the factory. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sky4meplease 0 #158 October 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteWe need more TIs who know when to say "No." What we need is more common sense! Hell... look at what is hurting or killing most of our sport jumping brothers and sisters... bad decisions under good parachutes. Look what some of the students in this sport ask about on this site... "how do I get this camera attached to my head and when can I downsize". Staying alive in this sport and not breaking students is as much about common sense as it is about knowledge and experience. Our scheduler and manifest have a combined one hundred jumps. They don't have the knowledge or experience to make the call about who should jump. It's the instructor who is going to let the student outside of the aircraft who needs to make the determination as to weather or not it can be done safely. I have personally never refused a jump for someone who has met the weight requirements (which is more or less a gear manufacturer thing for us). I have however, highly recommended certain people come back on another day with better conditions for there particular needs. Not one of these students decided to jump anyway. The moment I lay eyes on my next student I am calculating how I will get them back to the ground safely and that includes multiple gear checks, paying attention to the aircraft and pilot on the way to altitude in case we need to exit early, keeping an eye outside of the a/c so I know where we are at so I know my options for landing in the event of an a/c emergency, looking for indications of ground winds including campfire smoke and where the smooth water lies on the lake so I know how far off the trees the turbulence plays, watching and talking to my student and calculating how they are going react, hooking up adjusting and explaining one more time how we are going to get out of the airplane and stable and who is deploying the parachute and at what altitude. Under canopy it's an immediate controlability check and how was my spot. I always do practice landings up high and we do them until it's as good as it's going to get then I calculate how I will set up and land based on that (sometimes it means a tandem PLF and there not pretty but it gets them to the ground without me on top of them. I do all of this while making sure my student is having the time of there life. This is what common sense tells me to do to be a thorough tandem instructor. If I can't do ALL of those things then common sense tells me NO.Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #159 October 30, 2012 Quote We need more TIs who know when to say "No." Introducing... the next know-it-all TI who will make a mistake that endangers a customer's life. FYI, Mr. only-the-TI-has-the-knowledge-experience-to-make-the-call, the TI in question has three time more jumps and time in sport, and more varied parachuting experience and expertise than you will accrue in two lifetimes -- and yet he made a serious error because the entire decision tree was laid at his feet on a 15-minute call, with him already manifested on three more loads. Quote Our scheduler and manifest have a combined one hundred jumps. They don't have the knowledge or experience to make the call about who should jump. Well, Mr. Grand Decisionmaking TI, they don't make the call in the system I propose; they only fill in the blanks on very simple questions that any whuffo can answer -- and then place them in either the "in spec" or "out of spec" assembly line. No "jump-no jump" decision required. The questions are simple. Is the prospective customer: Over age 40?* Overweight by more than 25 pounds?* Physically disabled or infirm in some way? Mentally disabled or infirm in some way? If there is a "yes" answer to any of these questions, then the customer is placed in the "out of spec" assembly line where, as previously discussed, the TIs have more time and attention to devote to properly assessing that customer to determine if they are capable of jumping and, if yes, how to accommodate their out of spec elements. * These numbers, of course, are adjustable. Quote It's the instructor who is going to let the student outside of the aircraft who needs to make the determination as to weather whether or not it can be done safely. That worked out really well for the TI in question, didn't it? And in part it happened not just because he had to deal with all the above-mentioned assembly line pressures but because, just like you, he thought he knew how to get it done, make it work, and "never refus(e) a jump for someone..." Well, even skygod know-everything, thorough TIs as yourself are human, and humans make mistakes, so putting a process in place that minimizes your chances to make a mistake seems to be, well... common sense. Quote I have personally never refused a jump for someone who has met the weight requirements (which is more or less a gear manufacturer thing for us). I have however, highly recommended certain people come back on another day with better conditions for there particular needs. Not one of these students decided to jump anyway. The moment I lay eyes on my next student I am calculating how I will get them back to the ground safely and that includes multiple gear checks, paying attention to the aircraft and pilot on the way to altitude in case we need to exit early, keeping an eye outside of the a/c so I know where we are at so I know my options for landing in the event of an a/c emergency, looking for indications of ground winds including campfire smoke and where the smooth water lies on the lake so I know how far off the trees the turbulence plays, watching and talking to my student and calculating how they are going react, hooking up adjusting and explaining one more time how we are going to get out of the airplane and stable and who is deploying the parachute and at what altitude. Under canopy it's an immediate controlability check and how was my spot. I always do practice landings up high and we do them until it's as good as it's going to get then I calculate how I will set up and land based on that (sometimes it means a tandem PLF and there not pretty but it gets them to the ground without me on top of them. I do all of this while making sure my student is having the time of there life. Great words... exactly -- exactly -- the same words the TI in question would no doubt have used to describe his personal process, a process which did in fact work for him on more tandems than you have total jumps before the jump in question. Quote This is what common sense tells me to do to be a thorough tandem instructor. If I can't do ALL of those things then common sense tells me NO. More great words, but unfortunately they reflect the precise attitude -- the all-powerful, all-knowing hero TI -- that must be replaced by a systems approach that sorts potential customers into two process paths that minimize system stress and the chances of individual TIs making assessment and execution mistakes. Thanks again for doing such a great job of presenting the element that most needs to be changed in tandem factory operations. Hopefully, you'll learn the same lesson the TI in question did, but from this forum instead of in freefall. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sky4meplease 0 #160 October 30, 2012 Thank you robinheid for the personal attack. Even though you don't speak very professionally, I do agree with you that there needs to be a system in place which allows more time for students that require it. What I don't agree with is your list of questions that put your prospective students into the "out of spec" category. What about scared people? I have seen scared people do things that make tandem skydives much more dangerous than being a few pounds overweight or having a few years under your belt. You should include airsickness. I have jumped with people who were in better shape than me who passed out or became motion sick from canopy descent and made our situation downright scarey. My point here is that you can put your student in front of the DZO, a TIE, the S&TA, and a certified rigger before there jump and there are still certain things that can and will happen during a tandem skydive that only the Tandem Instructor will be able to address. Without some common sense or critical thinking skills on the instructors behalf your student is in big trouble no matter how many systems you have in place. As for me, I don't appreciate you attacking my skills as an instructor and presuming I will make decisions that will endanger someones life. You have never met me and have never seen me work with students which is something I take very seriously. Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #161 October 30, 2012 Quote Thank you robinheid for the personal attack. Well, you were trumpeting how personally great you are at being a thorough and professional TI so of course my response is going to be personal, and if it diverges from your opinon of yourself then of course you will view it as an attack. Yawn... Quote Even though you don't speak very professionally, I do agree with you that there needs to be a system in place which allows more time for students that require it. What I don't agree with is your list of questions that put your prospective students into the "out of spec" category. What about scared people? Covered by the "mental infirmity" question if apparent early, covered by grand exalted TI judgment later. That particular element is in fact your job as a TI to deal with. When I did tandems, I took care of that part on the ground so I didn't have to deal with it in the air. Quote I have seen scared people do things that make tandem skydives much more dangerous than being a few pounds overweight or having a few years under your belt. Yes, and a good TI handles the fear factor on the ground, not in the air where it's dangerous. Quote You should include airsickness. I have jumped with people who were in better shape than me who passed out or became motion sick from canopy descent and made our situation downright scarey. No I shouldn't. That's on the TI for misadjusting the straps or turning too radically under canopy (or both). In 1500+ tandems, I only had one guy spew and it turned out to be the lovely spinach souffle with bad eggs in it he had for breakfast (his non-jumping girlfriend spewed hers on the ground without even jumping). Again, that particular element is on you. Maybe you need to learn a little more about harness adjustment and customer-friendly canopy flying. Quote My point here is that you can put your student in front of the DZO, a TIE, the S&TA, and a certified rigger before there jump and there are still certain things that can and will happen during a tandem skydive that only the Tandem Instructor will be able to address. Without some common sense or critical thinking skills on the instructors behalf your student is in big trouble no matter how many systems you have in place. That's right, but having a system in place that allows more time and warning for grand exalted TIs such as yourself to deal with out of spec customers means you're less likely to make errors with them that could cause issues such as the tandem in question. Quote As for me, I don't appreciate you attacking my skills as an instructor and presuming I will make decisions that will endanger someones life. Let me get this straight: A guy with three times as many jumps and time in sport, plus more varied and deep experience in all phases of parachuting than you will ever have did in fact make decisions that endangered someone's life -- and you take offense to the suggestion that it could happen to you? If I was your DZO, I'd terminate you today for that attitude, and if I was the manufacturer on whose gear you jumped, I'd yank your ticket today, This attitude of yours is precisely why we have these kind of incidents because the moment you start thinking it can't happen to you -- it will. As (IIRC) Sparky has as his signature quote, nobody's good enough at this sport that they can't die doing it. Your arrogant ignorance of reality in the face of the undeniable fact that a TI far more skilful and experienced than you will ever be can make such an error -- but you don't "appreciate" the suggestion that you could too -- means you have zero business taking anyone on a tandem. Quote You have never met me and have never seen me work with students which is something I take very seriously. But with a fatal flaw in your operating system paradigm, so please take Samuel Jackson's advice, wouldja? Thanks, love and kisses 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites linebckr83 3 #162 October 30, 2012 If I didn't know any better, I'd be willing to bet that was the post of an 18 yr old kid with a shitty temper. Not a great way to prove your point. Sky4me has 14 yrs in the sport. So three times that is 42 years. That instructor sure didn't look 42 years old, let alone has 42 years jumping. But you're right, with that vast experience it has to be the system's fault not his. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a 15 minute call its possible to put a fucking harness on correctly BEFORE boarding the plane. Maybe he should have used his vast experience and badass-ness to do what manifest failed to do and turn the lady down? I already agreed that the system needs changed, but going so far out of your way to defend this TI that you need to talk shit on fellow instructors that you don't know (who apparently know and respect the job) is pretty ridiculous."Are you coming to the party? Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!" Flying Hellfish #828 Dudist #52 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #163 October 30, 2012 Quote If I didn't know any better, I'd be willing to bet that was the post of an 18 yr old kid with a shitty temper. Not a great way to prove your point. Sky4me has 14 yrs in the sport. So three times that is 42 years. That instructor sure didn't look 42 years old, let alone has 42 years jumping. But you're right, with that vast experience it has to be the system's fault not his. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a 15 minute call its possible to put a fucking harness on correctly BEFORE boarding the plane. Maybe he should have used his vast experience and badass-ness to do what manifest failed to do and turn the lady down? I already agreed that the system needs changed, but going so far out of your way to defend this TI that you need to talk shit on fellow instructors that you don't know (who apparently know and respect the job) is pretty ridiculous. Sorry, I misread his bio info. TI in question actually has not three times as many jumps but SIX TIMES THE JUMPS (9000+), and more than twice as many years (30+ years) in the sport and several times as many tandem jumps (3000) as Sky4me has total jumps. You are wrong, though, and I'm happy to correct you: If you would read what I wrote instead of persisting in your own holier-than-thou attitude, you would see that I do not defend the TI in question; I use the FACT of his enormous, skill, experience and time-in-sport for what is called a CAUTIONARY TALE that focuses on the truth that if it can happen to him, it can sure happen to low-timers and newbies such as you and Sky4me -- and that with the attitudes both of you exhibit on this thread, it probably WILL. Really, dude, what you characterize as **** talking about other TIs is simply pointing out an attitude held by a TI that is in fact precisely the kind of attitude that results in these kinds of incidents. In so doing, you reveal yourself to be someone who holds the same attitude -- ignorant arrogance about something you think you know so much about but in reality have only the barest clue. It CAN happen to you, and until you can look yourself in the mirror and say "Yes, I can make those mistakes too," and "there but for the grace of God go I," you will remain a liability within the industry. Keep in mind that the previous fatal falls from harnesses all happened to TIs more experienced than either you or Sky4me, so enough with the pouting and listen up: The system I propose is designed to alleviate some of the stresses and judgment calls heaped upon the TIs in factory operations, leaving them the time and warning to better apply the knowledge, skill and experience they have accrued, thereby reducing system exposure to incidents such as the one in question, thereby preserving the economic model upon which turbine aircraft drop zone operations are based, thereby preserving the sport we also love so much that we argue about it online when we're not out there doing it. Love and kisses and a hearty Samuel to you too, 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites linebckr83 3 #164 October 30, 2012 Now that you got your paragraph of personal assumptions about me out of the way, we can continue. You failed to answer the one single question I asked. Why didn't his unlimited wisdom tell him to tell the passenger no, or to properly secure a harness instead of trying to look like a hotshot? Quote You are wrong, though, and I'm happy to correct you Since you felt the need to happily correct me, then you must disagree that a harness cannot be properly adjusted on a 15-minute call. That's what I asked to be corrected on did I not? Quote and that with the attitudes both of you exhibit on this thread, it probably WILL Please point out where in my post I referenced myself at all. Anything at all? Even a little? No didn't think so. So I'm not sure where you get off making assumptions about me being holier-than-thou or having an attitude. But you're right, people do (or almost do) fall out of harnesses every day. It's common and easy to do and I need to be much more careful in preventing that. The fact is it has happened twice before, and almost happened here again. There's always a possibility and I'm willing to bet any decent TI has it in the back of his mind. I sure do, which is why I religiously fit the harness properly before boarding the airplane, then check it several times after. Too bad he didn't feel the need to do it on that jump. Could this happen to me? Absolutely! It is my single biggest fear as a TI. You can quit claiming I have an "it'll never happen to me" attitude because I obviously don't. I do what I can on every single jump to prevent a disaster like that. Tons of experience or not, your hotshot TI failed when it counted. I have 10x more respect for a TI with 1000 tandems and no hiccups than one with 3000 tandems who about fucking killed someone out of gross neglect. Quote The system I propose is designed to alleviate some of the stresses and judgment calls heaped upon the TIs in factory operations, leaving them the time and warning to better apply the knowledge, skill and experience they have accrued, thereby reducing system exposure to incidents such as the one in question, thereby preserving the economic model upon which turbine aircraft drop zone operations are based, thereby preserving the sport we also love so much that we argue about it online when we're not out there doing it. The system you propose huh? Go ahead and incorporate your system if you think its not already being done in places outside Lodi. I for one can personally vouch for not taking students I was not comfortable with. As for the ones who I knew I could handle but had to be extra cautious, I put the fucking harness on right and didn't end up with a viral youtube video By the way, I personally don't care how long you've been jumping or how awesome you feel by talking like a dick. But a grumpy old skygod is just as bad as a newbie hotshot wannabe swooper. Except they are atleast fun to party with and usually have hot girlfriends. "Are you coming to the party? Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!" Flying Hellfish #828 Dudist #52 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sky4meplease 0 #165 October 30, 2012 I am not going to argue publicly with some one who has 38 years of skydiving experience about who is a low timer or a newbie. My guess is that in robinheid's eyes... everyone is and if that makes him feel better that's great. Robinheid is right that some students need more time pre-jump than others and any system that is put in place to give them that extra instruction would be worth the effort. I still think that once the wheels leave the ground it is not a system but a properly trained, respectful instructor with good common sense that will bring your student back safe.Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #166 October 30, 2012 Quote Now that you got your paragraph of personal assumptions about me out of the way, we can continue. You failed to answer the one single question I asked. Why didn't his unlimited wisdom tell him to tell the passenger no, or to properly secure a harness instead of trying to look like a hotshot? youll have to ask him that. I wasn't there. Why would you think I know the answer? Quote You are wrong, though, and I'm happy to correct you Since you felt the need to happily correct me, then you must disagree that a harness cannot be properly adjusted on a 15-minute call. That's what I asked to be corrected on did I not? Not as I read it. Please write more clearly next time. Quote and that with the attitudes both of you exhibit on this thread, it probably WILL Please point out where in my post I referenced myself at all. Anything at all? Even a little? No didn't think so. So I'm not sure where you get off making assumptions about me being holier-than-thou or having an attitude. But you're right, people do (or almost do) fall out of harnesses every day. It's common and easy to do and I need to be much more careful in preventing that. this post and the one preceding it reek of holier-than-thou. You aren't fit to carry that TI's jock, yet your attitude toward him is so superior with your 1/10th as many jumps and 1/8th as many years in the sport. And you're so clueless you don't even notice. Samuel Jackson, son. SAMUEL JACKSON. The fact is it has happened twice before, and almost happened here again. There's always a possibility and I'm willing to bet any decent TI has it in the back of his mind. I sure do, which is why I religiously fit the harness properly before boarding the airplane, then check it several times after. Too bad he didn't feel the need to do it on that jump. there you go, making assumptions again. You know only what you think you can see from a very incomplete video and you go on and on as if you were there. And guess what, Mr. Know-it-all-with-less-than-1K-jumps: One answer to your question is blazingly obvious in the video and you of course don't have a clue what it is or you woulda mentioned it by now. Could this happen to me? Absolutely! It is my single biggest fear as a TI. You can quit claiming I have an "it'll never happen to me" attitude because I obviously don't. I do what I can on every single jump to prevent a disaster like that. Tons of experience or not, your hotshot TI failed when it counted. I have 10x more respect for a TI with 1000 tandems and no hiccups than one with 3000 tandems who about fucking killed someone out of gross neglect. and it is this conclusion that's so dangerous because you just can't seem to get yer punkin haid around the concept that maybe he wasn't guilty of gross neglect, that, just like fatalities that appear to have occurred as a result of "gross neglect," there was an at-the-time logical event process that seemed to make sense at the time but only in retrospect did not. Again, you can see the precipitating element clearly in the video but of course you're so smart that you've already come to your conclusion so you can't see it. Here's a hint, though; it could happen to you no matter how securely you think you've fitted the harness. Again, this is what I mean by your dangerous attitude; your head is so full of what you think you know that there is no room in it to learn anything new and different, which we as a sport and individual TIs must do if this sub-set of sport parachuting (and all the turbines supported by it) are to survive. Quote The system I propose is designed to alleviate some of the stresses and judgment calls heaped upon the TIs in factory operations, leaving them the time and warning to better apply the knowledge, skill and experience they have accrued, thereby reducing system exposure to incidents such as the one in question, thereby preserving the economic model upon which turbine aircraft drop zone operations are based, thereby preserving the sport we also love so much that we argue about it online when we're not out there doing it. The system you propose huh? Go ahead and incorporate your system if you think its not already being done in places outside Lodi. I for one can personally vouch for not taking students I was not comfortable with. As for the ones who I knew I could handle but had to be extra cautious, I put the fucking harness on right and didn't end up with a viral youtube video you still don't get it. what you do personally as a TI is absolutely not what I suggest. Go back and read the pertinent parts of this thread and set aside your "I'm so good I always get it right" attitude so that maybe, just maybe, you might learn something. By the way, I personally don't care how long you've been jumping or how awesome you feel by talking like a dick. But a grumpy old skygod is just as bad as a newbie hotshot wannabe swooper. Except they are at least fun to party with and usually have hot girlfriends. Well, thanks for that, at least, but never fear; you newbie hotshots will eventually figure out how to party and get hot girlfriends just like the grumpy old skygods. But back to the subject at hand: Take it personally if you want, but when you've seen as much blood as I have, grumpy doesn't begin to describe how I feel when I hear you replaying the same tape I've heard for almost 40 years. If the in spec/out of spec system was incorporated across the factory operations, we wouldn't see any fall-out-of-harness fatalities or the multiple close calls which we don't see because except for this one the camera always malfunctions. You have not heard a word anyone has said about this systemic issue. You seem to think your hero TI attitude is going to see you through. So did those guys who watched their students separate from them. So did the TI in question who, after he made his mistakes, took the never-ever-give-up route and saved his passenger. So did all the guys who had calls as close as the one in question but whose camera flyers miraculously missed the jump. That is why systemic assembly line reform needs to be applied to our factory operations -- because we do in fact need more than the hero TI attitude to get us through. I always get a kick out of you arrogant snooty little know-it-all newbies. Five years from now you'll be dead or gone from the sport and I'll still be here jumping and pissing off the next generation of newbie know-it-alls. Peace out, son, and I hope you get it before it gets you. LOL... 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #167 October 30, 2012 Quote Robinheid is right that some students need more time pre-jump than others and any system that is put in place to give them that extra instruction would be worth the effort. I still think that once the wheels leave the ground it is not a system but a properly trained, respectful instructor with good common sense that will bring your student back safe. +1 Elegantly stated. Peace out. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites linebckr83 3 #168 October 31, 2012 I had a ridiculously long reply typed out but my internet crashed while posting it. Probably a good move since, from reading your other threads, arguing with you is beyond pointless. You maintain a different mentality about many things, more power to you I suppose. Please answer me this though. In the apparently "very incomplete" video, you can see the woman walking to the plane with a harness that's not even close to properly adjusted, can you not? In the airplane while moving to the door, her head is about level with the TI's abdomen, is it not? I've never seen a properly adjusted harness have anywhere near that range of movement. How is this not negligence on his part? Could it have happened on a properly adjusted harness? Absolutely. Is it much more likely on an improperly adjusted harness? Apparently so. What was this argument even about? I said you were wrongly defending the TI which you claim is false. You think I dont agree with a system to weed out potentially unsafe tandem students, which is also false as I clearly stated. I don't like grumpy old guys with consdescending attitudes, and you don't like newbie hot shots with hot girlfriends. I think I do everything in my power to make every tandem jump I make as safe as possible. That includes understanding the risk and potential for disaster, and doing whatever I can to prevent it which includes turning away those who are not fit to make a skydive. With each jump I learn new techniques and skills to make every other skydive safer. What more would you like me to do? In the end, the big difference is that come saturday I will be doing my job at a small 182 dz where I get to know every tandem student, can adequately decide if jumping is in their best interest or not, and can perform my job uninterrupted. I don't have to deal with the same Lodi or turbine dz bullshit that you do, which is probably why you're a grumpy old dude in the first place. Cheers! And try to be nicer to the little kids coming to your house tonight or they won't like you either. "Are you coming to the party? Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!" Flying Hellfish #828 Dudist #52 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sky4meplease 0 #169 November 1, 2012 QuoteI had a ridiculously long reply typed out but my internet crashed while posting it. Probably a good move since, from reading your other threads, arguing with you is beyond pointless. I too at some point had a long speech typed out for robinheid and decided to delete it. I came to the conclusion that this is a man probably my fathers age and my father is a little crusty as well. I also realized I was five years old when robinheid started skydiving and that deserves my respect. Sadly enough the instructors who really need to read this thread and others like it probably don't.Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #170 November 1, 2012 I hope you're just playing devils advocate, because I think defending the T-I's incompetence, the DZO's deplorable (recent) safety record and lack of following industry "standards", to be morally weak and ethically anorexic. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #171 November 1, 2012 Quote Quote I had a ridiculously long reply typed out but my internet crashed while posting it. Probably a good move since, from reading your other threads, arguing with you is beyond pointless. I too at some point had a long speech typed out for robinheid and decided to delete it. I came to the conclusion that this is a man probably my fathers age and my father is a little crusty as well. I also realized I was five years old when robinheid started skydiving and that deserves my respect. Sadly enough the instructors who really need to read this thread and others like it probably don't. Sigh... another +1 And an apology is in order... your last two posts make it clear that I misjudged your intent and character when I responded to your first posts. My apologies and good on ya, mate, for hanging in there anyway. I look forward to meeting you some day. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #172 November 1, 2012 Quote I hope you're just playing devils advocate, because I think defending the T-I's incompetence, the DZO's deplorable (recent) safety record and lack of following industry "standards", to be morally weak and ethically anorexic. Matt Well, as the great Hugh Akston once said, when you're faced with an apparent contradiciton, check your premises. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sky4meplease 0 #173 November 1, 2012 QuoteI hope you're just playing devils advocate, because I think defending the T-I's incompetence, the DZO's deplorable (recent) safety record and lack of following industry "standards", to be morally weak and ethically anorexic. QuoteIf you would read what I wrote instead of persisting in your own holier-than-thou attitude, you would see that I do not defend the TI in question; I use the FACT of his enormous, skill, experience and time-in-sport for what is called a CAUTIONARY TALE that focuses on the truth that if it can happen to him, it can sure happen to low-timers and newbies such as you and Sky4me Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sky4meplease 0 #174 November 1, 2012 QuoteMy apologies and good on ya, mate, for hanging in there anyway. I look forward to meeting you some day. Apology accepted. Thank you. I look forward to meeting you as well.Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hparrish 0 #175 November 1, 2012 Bill Dause is single handedly causing irreversible damage to our sport, and since he is not a USPA Member dropzone there is little USPA can do about him. Unfortunately the FAA can do something about him,has, is,and I'm glad they are giving him the attention he is begging for. It sucks that he's willing to take our hole sport down his shithole with him. Not that he will, but Thea fact that he doesn't seem to care is BS. And I'm glad the FAA is fining this Shitbag TI !!! I think he's getting off light, but I'm positive that all of his ratings have been pulled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 7 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
robinheid 0 #152 October 29, 2012 Quote Quote ... and putting her in an "out of spec" traffic flow, where she belonged. Quote Sounds like a simple enough solution to me. ......................................................................... On many ocassions, manifest called me to inspect a student. I leaned my head in the hangar door and quickly concluded that the student: was an "armchair athlete," "needed commercial license plates", "burned diesel," "was under-tall for her weight," etc. ... frowned, shook my head "No" and wandered off. That was the end of that student's skydiving career. We need more TIs who know when to say "No." And tandem factories that will accept such a decision without firing the TI for making it. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #153 October 29, 2012 Quote Quote Which is a critical point: We have as an industry swept this under the rug for far too long; the assembly line factory tandem operation is widespread throughout the country and to stick our heads somewhere dark and blame it all on Bill and his TI is to perpetuate the fundamental problem: a "one-track" tandem system when what we need is a two-track" system that differentiates from the check-in counter on between "in spec" and "out of spec" students, to wit: those of normal age, weight, body shape and infirmities (none); and those who fall outside of "normal" for any of those criteria. In the case in question, the customer was way out of spec for each criterion, yet she was placed in the normal student flow, and the TI "tried to make it work" instead of cutting away from that student immediately and putting her in an "out of spec" traffic flow, where she belonged. Quote Sounds like a simple enough solution to me. Except Cost to much $$$$$ Why could that extra cost not be passed onto the "special needs" passenger? If done properly the extra costs for the time required could be negated versus a "normal" passenger. Factories gain their efficiencies and maintain quality by using identical parts. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
linebckr83 3 #154 October 29, 2012 Not disagreeing with your points, because these are things that do need to happen. But I also believe this specific student could have been taken on a skydive safely without almost falling out of her harness (and dare I say it, even without a y-mod). While she should have been turned down, the TI is equally to blame for doing a shitty job. Blame where blame is due."Are you coming to the party? Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!" Flying Hellfish #828 Dudist #52 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #155 October 29, 2012 Quote Not disagreeing with your points, because these are things that do need to happen. But I also believe this specific student could have been taken on a skydive safely without almost falling out of her harness (and dare I say it, even without a y-mod). While she should have been turned down, the TI is equally to blame for doing a shitty job. Blame where blame is due. Absolutely she could have been taken safely -- by following the "out of spec" protocol -- which must begin at the check-in counter, not at the TI level, where he's on a 15-minute call and is expected by the system to "make it work." Yes, he made a poor decision by doing that, but he was "set up to fail" by a one-track system -- and that is what needs to be fixed system-wide. The "in spec" / "out of spec" concept needs to become industry standard, period. Full stop. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #156 October 29, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Which is a critical point: We have as an industry swept this under the rug for far too long; the assembly line factory tandem operation is widespread throughout the country and to stick our heads somewhere dark and blame it all on Bill and his TI is to perpetuate the fundamental problem: a "one-track" tandem system when what we need is a two-track" system that differentiates from the check-in counter on between "in spec" and "out of spec" students, to wit: those of normal age, weight, body shape and infirmities (none); and those who fall outside of "normal" for any of those criteria. In the case in question, the customer was way out of spec for each criterion, yet she was placed in the normal student flow, and the TI "tried to make it work" instead of cutting away from that student immediately and putting her in an "out of spec" traffic flow, where she belonged. Quote Sounds like a simple enough solution to me. Except Cost to much $$$$$ Why could that extra cost not be passed onto the "special needs" passenger? If done properly the extra costs for the time required could be negated versus a "normal" passenger. Factories gain their efficiencies and maintain quality by using identical parts. Hi B Me badMY cost to much $$$$$ comment , was based on the $$$ lost due to one less Student by the end of the day. R. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #157 October 29, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Which is a critical point: We have as an industry swept this under the rug for far too long; the assembly line factory tandem operation is widespread throughout the country and to stick our heads somewhere dark and blame it all on Bill and his TI is to perpetuate the fundamental problem: a "one-track" tandem system when what we need is a two-track" system that differentiates from the check-in counter on between "in spec" and "out of spec" students, to wit: those of normal age, weight, body shape and infirmities (none); and those who fall outside of "normal" for any of those criteria. In the case in question, the customer was way out of spec for each criterion, yet she was placed in the normal student flow, and the TI "tried to make it work" instead of cutting away from that student immediately and putting her in an "out of spec" traffic flow, where she belonged. Quote Sounds like a simple enough solution to me. Except Cost to much $$$$$ Why could that extra cost not be passed onto the "special needs" passenger? If done properly the extra costs for the time required could be negated versus a "normal" passenger. Factories gain their efficiencies and maintain quality by using identical parts. Hi B Me badMY cost to much $$$$$ comment , was based on the $$$ lost due to one less Student by the end of the day. R. We have a winner. In addition to one less student by the end of the day, it may become more than that because "out of spec" students may require manifest juggling in order to accommodate them and that can ripple through the assembly line. However, that cost pales in comparison to the DZ and overall sport cost of having another customer slip out of a harness or otherwise get injured or killed because they are out of spec but not treated as such. Perhaps the premier "out of spec" TI in history is Jim Wallace, who counts more than 20,000 student-related jumps among his I-don't-know-how-many-he-has-now total, thousands of which are tandems, and more than 200 of which were out-of-spec passengers he called "fragile packages" (old people, paraplegics, quadraplegics, the morbidly obese and people with serious illnesses, et al). Jim would not only schedule them for a specific time, he would take them up only in essentially perfect tandem conditions (stable wind in the 7+ mph range) and allot considerably more time for briefing them, prepping them, getting them into the airplane -- and getting them out of the airplane. Plus, he had one specific rig that opened softer than his others and he always used that one. These are the kinds of accommodations every factory system needs to use, and as you can see from Jim's process, it starts not when the customer is handed to the TI on a 15-minute call, with other already-manifested loads already backed up on him, but when the customer first calls. In sales, this is called "pre-qualifying" the prospect, and in this case, the sales person can tick off the in spec/out of spec questions and know even before the customer shows up the assembly line to which they must be assigned. It is not that hard to do, just a little pre-planning and procedure writing, then follow it. The big issue, though, is changing the attitude and mindset of the factory operations to understand that this two-track system is needed. Yes, almost anyone can make a tandem, but not everyone can make a routine, one-size-fits-all tandem because when it comes to people, they are not all one size. As soon as our factory operations get that through their heads -- and adapt their assembly lines accordingly, the chances of incidents such as the one in question will drop to near zero. And yes, it may cost a DZ a little more in short-term $$ to accommodate out of spec customers, but they also benefit in two ways: 1) Treating out of spec customers differently is insurance against a mishap such as the incident in question; and 2) Out of spec customers often generate enough publicity to attract enough extra customers to more than make up for the one that cost a bit more to cycle through the factory. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sky4meplease 0 #158 October 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteWe need more TIs who know when to say "No." What we need is more common sense! Hell... look at what is hurting or killing most of our sport jumping brothers and sisters... bad decisions under good parachutes. Look what some of the students in this sport ask about on this site... "how do I get this camera attached to my head and when can I downsize". Staying alive in this sport and not breaking students is as much about common sense as it is about knowledge and experience. Our scheduler and manifest have a combined one hundred jumps. They don't have the knowledge or experience to make the call about who should jump. It's the instructor who is going to let the student outside of the aircraft who needs to make the determination as to weather or not it can be done safely. I have personally never refused a jump for someone who has met the weight requirements (which is more or less a gear manufacturer thing for us). I have however, highly recommended certain people come back on another day with better conditions for there particular needs. Not one of these students decided to jump anyway. The moment I lay eyes on my next student I am calculating how I will get them back to the ground safely and that includes multiple gear checks, paying attention to the aircraft and pilot on the way to altitude in case we need to exit early, keeping an eye outside of the a/c so I know where we are at so I know my options for landing in the event of an a/c emergency, looking for indications of ground winds including campfire smoke and where the smooth water lies on the lake so I know how far off the trees the turbulence plays, watching and talking to my student and calculating how they are going react, hooking up adjusting and explaining one more time how we are going to get out of the airplane and stable and who is deploying the parachute and at what altitude. Under canopy it's an immediate controlability check and how was my spot. I always do practice landings up high and we do them until it's as good as it's going to get then I calculate how I will set up and land based on that (sometimes it means a tandem PLF and there not pretty but it gets them to the ground without me on top of them. I do all of this while making sure my student is having the time of there life. This is what common sense tells me to do to be a thorough tandem instructor. If I can't do ALL of those things then common sense tells me NO.Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #159 October 30, 2012 Quote We need more TIs who know when to say "No." Introducing... the next know-it-all TI who will make a mistake that endangers a customer's life. FYI, Mr. only-the-TI-has-the-knowledge-experience-to-make-the-call, the TI in question has three time more jumps and time in sport, and more varied parachuting experience and expertise than you will accrue in two lifetimes -- and yet he made a serious error because the entire decision tree was laid at his feet on a 15-minute call, with him already manifested on three more loads. Quote Our scheduler and manifest have a combined one hundred jumps. They don't have the knowledge or experience to make the call about who should jump. Well, Mr. Grand Decisionmaking TI, they don't make the call in the system I propose; they only fill in the blanks on very simple questions that any whuffo can answer -- and then place them in either the "in spec" or "out of spec" assembly line. No "jump-no jump" decision required. The questions are simple. Is the prospective customer: Over age 40?* Overweight by more than 25 pounds?* Physically disabled or infirm in some way? Mentally disabled or infirm in some way? If there is a "yes" answer to any of these questions, then the customer is placed in the "out of spec" assembly line where, as previously discussed, the TIs have more time and attention to devote to properly assessing that customer to determine if they are capable of jumping and, if yes, how to accommodate their out of spec elements. * These numbers, of course, are adjustable. Quote It's the instructor who is going to let the student outside of the aircraft who needs to make the determination as to weather whether or not it can be done safely. That worked out really well for the TI in question, didn't it? And in part it happened not just because he had to deal with all the above-mentioned assembly line pressures but because, just like you, he thought he knew how to get it done, make it work, and "never refus(e) a jump for someone..." Well, even skygod know-everything, thorough TIs as yourself are human, and humans make mistakes, so putting a process in place that minimizes your chances to make a mistake seems to be, well... common sense. Quote I have personally never refused a jump for someone who has met the weight requirements (which is more or less a gear manufacturer thing for us). I have however, highly recommended certain people come back on another day with better conditions for there particular needs. Not one of these students decided to jump anyway. The moment I lay eyes on my next student I am calculating how I will get them back to the ground safely and that includes multiple gear checks, paying attention to the aircraft and pilot on the way to altitude in case we need to exit early, keeping an eye outside of the a/c so I know where we are at so I know my options for landing in the event of an a/c emergency, looking for indications of ground winds including campfire smoke and where the smooth water lies on the lake so I know how far off the trees the turbulence plays, watching and talking to my student and calculating how they are going react, hooking up adjusting and explaining one more time how we are going to get out of the airplane and stable and who is deploying the parachute and at what altitude. Under canopy it's an immediate controlability check and how was my spot. I always do practice landings up high and we do them until it's as good as it's going to get then I calculate how I will set up and land based on that (sometimes it means a tandem PLF and there not pretty but it gets them to the ground without me on top of them. I do all of this while making sure my student is having the time of there life. Great words... exactly -- exactly -- the same words the TI in question would no doubt have used to describe his personal process, a process which did in fact work for him on more tandems than you have total jumps before the jump in question. Quote This is what common sense tells me to do to be a thorough tandem instructor. If I can't do ALL of those things then common sense tells me NO. More great words, but unfortunately they reflect the precise attitude -- the all-powerful, all-knowing hero TI -- that must be replaced by a systems approach that sorts potential customers into two process paths that minimize system stress and the chances of individual TIs making assessment and execution mistakes. Thanks again for doing such a great job of presenting the element that most needs to be changed in tandem factory operations. Hopefully, you'll learn the same lesson the TI in question did, but from this forum instead of in freefall. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sky4meplease 0 #160 October 30, 2012 Thank you robinheid for the personal attack. Even though you don't speak very professionally, I do agree with you that there needs to be a system in place which allows more time for students that require it. What I don't agree with is your list of questions that put your prospective students into the "out of spec" category. What about scared people? I have seen scared people do things that make tandem skydives much more dangerous than being a few pounds overweight or having a few years under your belt. You should include airsickness. I have jumped with people who were in better shape than me who passed out or became motion sick from canopy descent and made our situation downright scarey. My point here is that you can put your student in front of the DZO, a TIE, the S&TA, and a certified rigger before there jump and there are still certain things that can and will happen during a tandem skydive that only the Tandem Instructor will be able to address. Without some common sense or critical thinking skills on the instructors behalf your student is in big trouble no matter how many systems you have in place. As for me, I don't appreciate you attacking my skills as an instructor and presuming I will make decisions that will endanger someones life. You have never met me and have never seen me work with students which is something I take very seriously. Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #161 October 30, 2012 Quote Thank you robinheid for the personal attack. Well, you were trumpeting how personally great you are at being a thorough and professional TI so of course my response is going to be personal, and if it diverges from your opinon of yourself then of course you will view it as an attack. Yawn... Quote Even though you don't speak very professionally, I do agree with you that there needs to be a system in place which allows more time for students that require it. What I don't agree with is your list of questions that put your prospective students into the "out of spec" category. What about scared people? Covered by the "mental infirmity" question if apparent early, covered by grand exalted TI judgment later. That particular element is in fact your job as a TI to deal with. When I did tandems, I took care of that part on the ground so I didn't have to deal with it in the air. Quote I have seen scared people do things that make tandem skydives much more dangerous than being a few pounds overweight or having a few years under your belt. Yes, and a good TI handles the fear factor on the ground, not in the air where it's dangerous. Quote You should include airsickness. I have jumped with people who were in better shape than me who passed out or became motion sick from canopy descent and made our situation downright scarey. No I shouldn't. That's on the TI for misadjusting the straps or turning too radically under canopy (or both). In 1500+ tandems, I only had one guy spew and it turned out to be the lovely spinach souffle with bad eggs in it he had for breakfast (his non-jumping girlfriend spewed hers on the ground without even jumping). Again, that particular element is on you. Maybe you need to learn a little more about harness adjustment and customer-friendly canopy flying. Quote My point here is that you can put your student in front of the DZO, a TIE, the S&TA, and a certified rigger before there jump and there are still certain things that can and will happen during a tandem skydive that only the Tandem Instructor will be able to address. Without some common sense or critical thinking skills on the instructors behalf your student is in big trouble no matter how many systems you have in place. That's right, but having a system in place that allows more time and warning for grand exalted TIs such as yourself to deal with out of spec customers means you're less likely to make errors with them that could cause issues such as the tandem in question. Quote As for me, I don't appreciate you attacking my skills as an instructor and presuming I will make decisions that will endanger someones life. Let me get this straight: A guy with three times as many jumps and time in sport, plus more varied and deep experience in all phases of parachuting than you will ever have did in fact make decisions that endangered someone's life -- and you take offense to the suggestion that it could happen to you? If I was your DZO, I'd terminate you today for that attitude, and if I was the manufacturer on whose gear you jumped, I'd yank your ticket today, This attitude of yours is precisely why we have these kind of incidents because the moment you start thinking it can't happen to you -- it will. As (IIRC) Sparky has as his signature quote, nobody's good enough at this sport that they can't die doing it. Your arrogant ignorance of reality in the face of the undeniable fact that a TI far more skilful and experienced than you will ever be can make such an error -- but you don't "appreciate" the suggestion that you could too -- means you have zero business taking anyone on a tandem. Quote You have never met me and have never seen me work with students which is something I take very seriously. But with a fatal flaw in your operating system paradigm, so please take Samuel Jackson's advice, wouldja? Thanks, love and kisses 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites linebckr83 3 #162 October 30, 2012 If I didn't know any better, I'd be willing to bet that was the post of an 18 yr old kid with a shitty temper. Not a great way to prove your point. Sky4me has 14 yrs in the sport. So three times that is 42 years. That instructor sure didn't look 42 years old, let alone has 42 years jumping. But you're right, with that vast experience it has to be the system's fault not his. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a 15 minute call its possible to put a fucking harness on correctly BEFORE boarding the plane. Maybe he should have used his vast experience and badass-ness to do what manifest failed to do and turn the lady down? I already agreed that the system needs changed, but going so far out of your way to defend this TI that you need to talk shit on fellow instructors that you don't know (who apparently know and respect the job) is pretty ridiculous."Are you coming to the party? Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!" Flying Hellfish #828 Dudist #52 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #163 October 30, 2012 Quote If I didn't know any better, I'd be willing to bet that was the post of an 18 yr old kid with a shitty temper. Not a great way to prove your point. Sky4me has 14 yrs in the sport. So three times that is 42 years. That instructor sure didn't look 42 years old, let alone has 42 years jumping. But you're right, with that vast experience it has to be the system's fault not his. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a 15 minute call its possible to put a fucking harness on correctly BEFORE boarding the plane. Maybe he should have used his vast experience and badass-ness to do what manifest failed to do and turn the lady down? I already agreed that the system needs changed, but going so far out of your way to defend this TI that you need to talk shit on fellow instructors that you don't know (who apparently know and respect the job) is pretty ridiculous. Sorry, I misread his bio info. TI in question actually has not three times as many jumps but SIX TIMES THE JUMPS (9000+), and more than twice as many years (30+ years) in the sport and several times as many tandem jumps (3000) as Sky4me has total jumps. You are wrong, though, and I'm happy to correct you: If you would read what I wrote instead of persisting in your own holier-than-thou attitude, you would see that I do not defend the TI in question; I use the FACT of his enormous, skill, experience and time-in-sport for what is called a CAUTIONARY TALE that focuses on the truth that if it can happen to him, it can sure happen to low-timers and newbies such as you and Sky4me -- and that with the attitudes both of you exhibit on this thread, it probably WILL. Really, dude, what you characterize as **** talking about other TIs is simply pointing out an attitude held by a TI that is in fact precisely the kind of attitude that results in these kinds of incidents. In so doing, you reveal yourself to be someone who holds the same attitude -- ignorant arrogance about something you think you know so much about but in reality have only the barest clue. It CAN happen to you, and until you can look yourself in the mirror and say "Yes, I can make those mistakes too," and "there but for the grace of God go I," you will remain a liability within the industry. Keep in mind that the previous fatal falls from harnesses all happened to TIs more experienced than either you or Sky4me, so enough with the pouting and listen up: The system I propose is designed to alleviate some of the stresses and judgment calls heaped upon the TIs in factory operations, leaving them the time and warning to better apply the knowledge, skill and experience they have accrued, thereby reducing system exposure to incidents such as the one in question, thereby preserving the economic model upon which turbine aircraft drop zone operations are based, thereby preserving the sport we also love so much that we argue about it online when we're not out there doing it. Love and kisses and a hearty Samuel to you too, 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites linebckr83 3 #164 October 30, 2012 Now that you got your paragraph of personal assumptions about me out of the way, we can continue. You failed to answer the one single question I asked. Why didn't his unlimited wisdom tell him to tell the passenger no, or to properly secure a harness instead of trying to look like a hotshot? Quote You are wrong, though, and I'm happy to correct you Since you felt the need to happily correct me, then you must disagree that a harness cannot be properly adjusted on a 15-minute call. That's what I asked to be corrected on did I not? Quote and that with the attitudes both of you exhibit on this thread, it probably WILL Please point out where in my post I referenced myself at all. Anything at all? Even a little? No didn't think so. So I'm not sure where you get off making assumptions about me being holier-than-thou or having an attitude. But you're right, people do (or almost do) fall out of harnesses every day. It's common and easy to do and I need to be much more careful in preventing that. The fact is it has happened twice before, and almost happened here again. There's always a possibility and I'm willing to bet any decent TI has it in the back of his mind. I sure do, which is why I religiously fit the harness properly before boarding the airplane, then check it several times after. Too bad he didn't feel the need to do it on that jump. Could this happen to me? Absolutely! It is my single biggest fear as a TI. You can quit claiming I have an "it'll never happen to me" attitude because I obviously don't. I do what I can on every single jump to prevent a disaster like that. Tons of experience or not, your hotshot TI failed when it counted. I have 10x more respect for a TI with 1000 tandems and no hiccups than one with 3000 tandems who about fucking killed someone out of gross neglect. Quote The system I propose is designed to alleviate some of the stresses and judgment calls heaped upon the TIs in factory operations, leaving them the time and warning to better apply the knowledge, skill and experience they have accrued, thereby reducing system exposure to incidents such as the one in question, thereby preserving the economic model upon which turbine aircraft drop zone operations are based, thereby preserving the sport we also love so much that we argue about it online when we're not out there doing it. The system you propose huh? Go ahead and incorporate your system if you think its not already being done in places outside Lodi. I for one can personally vouch for not taking students I was not comfortable with. As for the ones who I knew I could handle but had to be extra cautious, I put the fucking harness on right and didn't end up with a viral youtube video By the way, I personally don't care how long you've been jumping or how awesome you feel by talking like a dick. But a grumpy old skygod is just as bad as a newbie hotshot wannabe swooper. Except they are atleast fun to party with and usually have hot girlfriends. "Are you coming to the party? Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!" Flying Hellfish #828 Dudist #52 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sky4meplease 0 #165 October 30, 2012 I am not going to argue publicly with some one who has 38 years of skydiving experience about who is a low timer or a newbie. My guess is that in robinheid's eyes... everyone is and if that makes him feel better that's great. Robinheid is right that some students need more time pre-jump than others and any system that is put in place to give them that extra instruction would be worth the effort. I still think that once the wheels leave the ground it is not a system but a properly trained, respectful instructor with good common sense that will bring your student back safe.Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #166 October 30, 2012 Quote Now that you got your paragraph of personal assumptions about me out of the way, we can continue. You failed to answer the one single question I asked. Why didn't his unlimited wisdom tell him to tell the passenger no, or to properly secure a harness instead of trying to look like a hotshot? youll have to ask him that. I wasn't there. Why would you think I know the answer? Quote You are wrong, though, and I'm happy to correct you Since you felt the need to happily correct me, then you must disagree that a harness cannot be properly adjusted on a 15-minute call. That's what I asked to be corrected on did I not? Not as I read it. Please write more clearly next time. Quote and that with the attitudes both of you exhibit on this thread, it probably WILL Please point out where in my post I referenced myself at all. Anything at all? Even a little? No didn't think so. So I'm not sure where you get off making assumptions about me being holier-than-thou or having an attitude. But you're right, people do (or almost do) fall out of harnesses every day. It's common and easy to do and I need to be much more careful in preventing that. this post and the one preceding it reek of holier-than-thou. You aren't fit to carry that TI's jock, yet your attitude toward him is so superior with your 1/10th as many jumps and 1/8th as many years in the sport. And you're so clueless you don't even notice. Samuel Jackson, son. SAMUEL JACKSON. The fact is it has happened twice before, and almost happened here again. There's always a possibility and I'm willing to bet any decent TI has it in the back of his mind. I sure do, which is why I religiously fit the harness properly before boarding the airplane, then check it several times after. Too bad he didn't feel the need to do it on that jump. there you go, making assumptions again. You know only what you think you can see from a very incomplete video and you go on and on as if you were there. And guess what, Mr. Know-it-all-with-less-than-1K-jumps: One answer to your question is blazingly obvious in the video and you of course don't have a clue what it is or you woulda mentioned it by now. Could this happen to me? Absolutely! It is my single biggest fear as a TI. You can quit claiming I have an "it'll never happen to me" attitude because I obviously don't. I do what I can on every single jump to prevent a disaster like that. Tons of experience or not, your hotshot TI failed when it counted. I have 10x more respect for a TI with 1000 tandems and no hiccups than one with 3000 tandems who about fucking killed someone out of gross neglect. and it is this conclusion that's so dangerous because you just can't seem to get yer punkin haid around the concept that maybe he wasn't guilty of gross neglect, that, just like fatalities that appear to have occurred as a result of "gross neglect," there was an at-the-time logical event process that seemed to make sense at the time but only in retrospect did not. Again, you can see the precipitating element clearly in the video but of course you're so smart that you've already come to your conclusion so you can't see it. Here's a hint, though; it could happen to you no matter how securely you think you've fitted the harness. Again, this is what I mean by your dangerous attitude; your head is so full of what you think you know that there is no room in it to learn anything new and different, which we as a sport and individual TIs must do if this sub-set of sport parachuting (and all the turbines supported by it) are to survive. Quote The system I propose is designed to alleviate some of the stresses and judgment calls heaped upon the TIs in factory operations, leaving them the time and warning to better apply the knowledge, skill and experience they have accrued, thereby reducing system exposure to incidents such as the one in question, thereby preserving the economic model upon which turbine aircraft drop zone operations are based, thereby preserving the sport we also love so much that we argue about it online when we're not out there doing it. The system you propose huh? Go ahead and incorporate your system if you think its not already being done in places outside Lodi. I for one can personally vouch for not taking students I was not comfortable with. As for the ones who I knew I could handle but had to be extra cautious, I put the fucking harness on right and didn't end up with a viral youtube video you still don't get it. what you do personally as a TI is absolutely not what I suggest. Go back and read the pertinent parts of this thread and set aside your "I'm so good I always get it right" attitude so that maybe, just maybe, you might learn something. By the way, I personally don't care how long you've been jumping or how awesome you feel by talking like a dick. But a grumpy old skygod is just as bad as a newbie hotshot wannabe swooper. Except they are at least fun to party with and usually have hot girlfriends. Well, thanks for that, at least, but never fear; you newbie hotshots will eventually figure out how to party and get hot girlfriends just like the grumpy old skygods. But back to the subject at hand: Take it personally if you want, but when you've seen as much blood as I have, grumpy doesn't begin to describe how I feel when I hear you replaying the same tape I've heard for almost 40 years. If the in spec/out of spec system was incorporated across the factory operations, we wouldn't see any fall-out-of-harness fatalities or the multiple close calls which we don't see because except for this one the camera always malfunctions. You have not heard a word anyone has said about this systemic issue. You seem to think your hero TI attitude is going to see you through. So did those guys who watched their students separate from them. So did the TI in question who, after he made his mistakes, took the never-ever-give-up route and saved his passenger. So did all the guys who had calls as close as the one in question but whose camera flyers miraculously missed the jump. That is why systemic assembly line reform needs to be applied to our factory operations -- because we do in fact need more than the hero TI attitude to get us through. I always get a kick out of you arrogant snooty little know-it-all newbies. Five years from now you'll be dead or gone from the sport and I'll still be here jumping and pissing off the next generation of newbie know-it-alls. Peace out, son, and I hope you get it before it gets you. LOL... 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #167 October 30, 2012 Quote Robinheid is right that some students need more time pre-jump than others and any system that is put in place to give them that extra instruction would be worth the effort. I still think that once the wheels leave the ground it is not a system but a properly trained, respectful instructor with good common sense that will bring your student back safe. +1 Elegantly stated. Peace out. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites linebckr83 3 #168 October 31, 2012 I had a ridiculously long reply typed out but my internet crashed while posting it. Probably a good move since, from reading your other threads, arguing with you is beyond pointless. You maintain a different mentality about many things, more power to you I suppose. Please answer me this though. In the apparently "very incomplete" video, you can see the woman walking to the plane with a harness that's not even close to properly adjusted, can you not? In the airplane while moving to the door, her head is about level with the TI's abdomen, is it not? I've never seen a properly adjusted harness have anywhere near that range of movement. How is this not negligence on his part? Could it have happened on a properly adjusted harness? Absolutely. Is it much more likely on an improperly adjusted harness? Apparently so. What was this argument even about? I said you were wrongly defending the TI which you claim is false. You think I dont agree with a system to weed out potentially unsafe tandem students, which is also false as I clearly stated. I don't like grumpy old guys with consdescending attitudes, and you don't like newbie hot shots with hot girlfriends. I think I do everything in my power to make every tandem jump I make as safe as possible. That includes understanding the risk and potential for disaster, and doing whatever I can to prevent it which includes turning away those who are not fit to make a skydive. With each jump I learn new techniques and skills to make every other skydive safer. What more would you like me to do? In the end, the big difference is that come saturday I will be doing my job at a small 182 dz where I get to know every tandem student, can adequately decide if jumping is in their best interest or not, and can perform my job uninterrupted. I don't have to deal with the same Lodi or turbine dz bullshit that you do, which is probably why you're a grumpy old dude in the first place. Cheers! And try to be nicer to the little kids coming to your house tonight or they won't like you either. "Are you coming to the party? Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!" Flying Hellfish #828 Dudist #52 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sky4meplease 0 #169 November 1, 2012 QuoteI had a ridiculously long reply typed out but my internet crashed while posting it. Probably a good move since, from reading your other threads, arguing with you is beyond pointless. I too at some point had a long speech typed out for robinheid and decided to delete it. I came to the conclusion that this is a man probably my fathers age and my father is a little crusty as well. I also realized I was five years old when robinheid started skydiving and that deserves my respect. Sadly enough the instructors who really need to read this thread and others like it probably don't.Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #170 November 1, 2012 I hope you're just playing devils advocate, because I think defending the T-I's incompetence, the DZO's deplorable (recent) safety record and lack of following industry "standards", to be morally weak and ethically anorexic. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #171 November 1, 2012 Quote Quote I had a ridiculously long reply typed out but my internet crashed while posting it. Probably a good move since, from reading your other threads, arguing with you is beyond pointless. I too at some point had a long speech typed out for robinheid and decided to delete it. I came to the conclusion that this is a man probably my fathers age and my father is a little crusty as well. I also realized I was five years old when robinheid started skydiving and that deserves my respect. Sadly enough the instructors who really need to read this thread and others like it probably don't. Sigh... another +1 And an apology is in order... your last two posts make it clear that I misjudged your intent and character when I responded to your first posts. My apologies and good on ya, mate, for hanging in there anyway. I look forward to meeting you some day. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #172 November 1, 2012 Quote I hope you're just playing devils advocate, because I think defending the T-I's incompetence, the DZO's deplorable (recent) safety record and lack of following industry "standards", to be morally weak and ethically anorexic. Matt Well, as the great Hugh Akston once said, when you're faced with an apparent contradiciton, check your premises. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sky4meplease 0 #173 November 1, 2012 QuoteI hope you're just playing devils advocate, because I think defending the T-I's incompetence, the DZO's deplorable (recent) safety record and lack of following industry "standards", to be morally weak and ethically anorexic. QuoteIf you would read what I wrote instead of persisting in your own holier-than-thou attitude, you would see that I do not defend the TI in question; I use the FACT of his enormous, skill, experience and time-in-sport for what is called a CAUTIONARY TALE that focuses on the truth that if it can happen to him, it can sure happen to low-timers and newbies such as you and Sky4me Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sky4meplease 0 #174 November 1, 2012 QuoteMy apologies and good on ya, mate, for hanging in there anyway. I look forward to meeting you some day. Apology accepted. Thank you. I look forward to meeting you as well.Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hparrish 0 #175 November 1, 2012 Bill Dause is single handedly causing irreversible damage to our sport, and since he is not a USPA Member dropzone there is little USPA can do about him. Unfortunately the FAA can do something about him,has, is,and I'm glad they are giving him the attention he is begging for. It sucks that he's willing to take our hole sport down his shithole with him. Not that he will, but Thea fact that he doesn't seem to care is BS. And I'm glad the FAA is fining this Shitbag TI !!! I think he's getting off light, but I'm positive that all of his ratings have been pulled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 7 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
robinheid 0 #159 October 30, 2012 Quote We need more TIs who know when to say "No." Introducing... the next know-it-all TI who will make a mistake that endangers a customer's life. FYI, Mr. only-the-TI-has-the-knowledge-experience-to-make-the-call, the TI in question has three time more jumps and time in sport, and more varied parachuting experience and expertise than you will accrue in two lifetimes -- and yet he made a serious error because the entire decision tree was laid at his feet on a 15-minute call, with him already manifested on three more loads. Quote Our scheduler and manifest have a combined one hundred jumps. They don't have the knowledge or experience to make the call about who should jump. Well, Mr. Grand Decisionmaking TI, they don't make the call in the system I propose; they only fill in the blanks on very simple questions that any whuffo can answer -- and then place them in either the "in spec" or "out of spec" assembly line. No "jump-no jump" decision required. The questions are simple. Is the prospective customer: Over age 40?* Overweight by more than 25 pounds?* Physically disabled or infirm in some way? Mentally disabled or infirm in some way? If there is a "yes" answer to any of these questions, then the customer is placed in the "out of spec" assembly line where, as previously discussed, the TIs have more time and attention to devote to properly assessing that customer to determine if they are capable of jumping and, if yes, how to accommodate their out of spec elements. * These numbers, of course, are adjustable. Quote It's the instructor who is going to let the student outside of the aircraft who needs to make the determination as to weather whether or not it can be done safely. That worked out really well for the TI in question, didn't it? And in part it happened not just because he had to deal with all the above-mentioned assembly line pressures but because, just like you, he thought he knew how to get it done, make it work, and "never refus(e) a jump for someone..." Well, even skygod know-everything, thorough TIs as yourself are human, and humans make mistakes, so putting a process in place that minimizes your chances to make a mistake seems to be, well... common sense. Quote I have personally never refused a jump for someone who has met the weight requirements (which is more or less a gear manufacturer thing for us). I have however, highly recommended certain people come back on another day with better conditions for there particular needs. Not one of these students decided to jump anyway. The moment I lay eyes on my next student I am calculating how I will get them back to the ground safely and that includes multiple gear checks, paying attention to the aircraft and pilot on the way to altitude in case we need to exit early, keeping an eye outside of the a/c so I know where we are at so I know my options for landing in the event of an a/c emergency, looking for indications of ground winds including campfire smoke and where the smooth water lies on the lake so I know how far off the trees the turbulence plays, watching and talking to my student and calculating how they are going react, hooking up adjusting and explaining one more time how we are going to get out of the airplane and stable and who is deploying the parachute and at what altitude. Under canopy it's an immediate controlability check and how was my spot. I always do practice landings up high and we do them until it's as good as it's going to get then I calculate how I will set up and land based on that (sometimes it means a tandem PLF and there not pretty but it gets them to the ground without me on top of them. I do all of this while making sure my student is having the time of there life. Great words... exactly -- exactly -- the same words the TI in question would no doubt have used to describe his personal process, a process which did in fact work for him on more tandems than you have total jumps before the jump in question. Quote This is what common sense tells me to do to be a thorough tandem instructor. If I can't do ALL of those things then common sense tells me NO. More great words, but unfortunately they reflect the precise attitude -- the all-powerful, all-knowing hero TI -- that must be replaced by a systems approach that sorts potential customers into two process paths that minimize system stress and the chances of individual TIs making assessment and execution mistakes. Thanks again for doing such a great job of presenting the element that most needs to be changed in tandem factory operations. Hopefully, you'll learn the same lesson the TI in question did, but from this forum instead of in freefall. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sky4meplease 0 #160 October 30, 2012 Thank you robinheid for the personal attack. Even though you don't speak very professionally, I do agree with you that there needs to be a system in place which allows more time for students that require it. What I don't agree with is your list of questions that put your prospective students into the "out of spec" category. What about scared people? I have seen scared people do things that make tandem skydives much more dangerous than being a few pounds overweight or having a few years under your belt. You should include airsickness. I have jumped with people who were in better shape than me who passed out or became motion sick from canopy descent and made our situation downright scarey. My point here is that you can put your student in front of the DZO, a TIE, the S&TA, and a certified rigger before there jump and there are still certain things that can and will happen during a tandem skydive that only the Tandem Instructor will be able to address. Without some common sense or critical thinking skills on the instructors behalf your student is in big trouble no matter how many systems you have in place. As for me, I don't appreciate you attacking my skills as an instructor and presuming I will make decisions that will endanger someones life. You have never met me and have never seen me work with students which is something I take very seriously. Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #161 October 30, 2012 Quote Thank you robinheid for the personal attack. Well, you were trumpeting how personally great you are at being a thorough and professional TI so of course my response is going to be personal, and if it diverges from your opinon of yourself then of course you will view it as an attack. Yawn... Quote Even though you don't speak very professionally, I do agree with you that there needs to be a system in place which allows more time for students that require it. What I don't agree with is your list of questions that put your prospective students into the "out of spec" category. What about scared people? Covered by the "mental infirmity" question if apparent early, covered by grand exalted TI judgment later. That particular element is in fact your job as a TI to deal with. When I did tandems, I took care of that part on the ground so I didn't have to deal with it in the air. Quote I have seen scared people do things that make tandem skydives much more dangerous than being a few pounds overweight or having a few years under your belt. Yes, and a good TI handles the fear factor on the ground, not in the air where it's dangerous. Quote You should include airsickness. I have jumped with people who were in better shape than me who passed out or became motion sick from canopy descent and made our situation downright scarey. No I shouldn't. That's on the TI for misadjusting the straps or turning too radically under canopy (or both). In 1500+ tandems, I only had one guy spew and it turned out to be the lovely spinach souffle with bad eggs in it he had for breakfast (his non-jumping girlfriend spewed hers on the ground without even jumping). Again, that particular element is on you. Maybe you need to learn a little more about harness adjustment and customer-friendly canopy flying. Quote My point here is that you can put your student in front of the DZO, a TIE, the S&TA, and a certified rigger before there jump and there are still certain things that can and will happen during a tandem skydive that only the Tandem Instructor will be able to address. Without some common sense or critical thinking skills on the instructors behalf your student is in big trouble no matter how many systems you have in place. That's right, but having a system in place that allows more time and warning for grand exalted TIs such as yourself to deal with out of spec customers means you're less likely to make errors with them that could cause issues such as the tandem in question. Quote As for me, I don't appreciate you attacking my skills as an instructor and presuming I will make decisions that will endanger someones life. Let me get this straight: A guy with three times as many jumps and time in sport, plus more varied and deep experience in all phases of parachuting than you will ever have did in fact make decisions that endangered someone's life -- and you take offense to the suggestion that it could happen to you? If I was your DZO, I'd terminate you today for that attitude, and if I was the manufacturer on whose gear you jumped, I'd yank your ticket today, This attitude of yours is precisely why we have these kind of incidents because the moment you start thinking it can't happen to you -- it will. As (IIRC) Sparky has as his signature quote, nobody's good enough at this sport that they can't die doing it. Your arrogant ignorance of reality in the face of the undeniable fact that a TI far more skilful and experienced than you will ever be can make such an error -- but you don't "appreciate" the suggestion that you could too -- means you have zero business taking anyone on a tandem. Quote You have never met me and have never seen me work with students which is something I take very seriously. But with a fatal flaw in your operating system paradigm, so please take Samuel Jackson's advice, wouldja? Thanks, love and kisses 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
linebckr83 3 #162 October 30, 2012 If I didn't know any better, I'd be willing to bet that was the post of an 18 yr old kid with a shitty temper. Not a great way to prove your point. Sky4me has 14 yrs in the sport. So three times that is 42 years. That instructor sure didn't look 42 years old, let alone has 42 years jumping. But you're right, with that vast experience it has to be the system's fault not his. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a 15 minute call its possible to put a fucking harness on correctly BEFORE boarding the plane. Maybe he should have used his vast experience and badass-ness to do what manifest failed to do and turn the lady down? I already agreed that the system needs changed, but going so far out of your way to defend this TI that you need to talk shit on fellow instructors that you don't know (who apparently know and respect the job) is pretty ridiculous."Are you coming to the party? Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!" Flying Hellfish #828 Dudist #52 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #163 October 30, 2012 Quote If I didn't know any better, I'd be willing to bet that was the post of an 18 yr old kid with a shitty temper. Not a great way to prove your point. Sky4me has 14 yrs in the sport. So three times that is 42 years. That instructor sure didn't look 42 years old, let alone has 42 years jumping. But you're right, with that vast experience it has to be the system's fault not his. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a 15 minute call its possible to put a fucking harness on correctly BEFORE boarding the plane. Maybe he should have used his vast experience and badass-ness to do what manifest failed to do and turn the lady down? I already agreed that the system needs changed, but going so far out of your way to defend this TI that you need to talk shit on fellow instructors that you don't know (who apparently know and respect the job) is pretty ridiculous. Sorry, I misread his bio info. TI in question actually has not three times as many jumps but SIX TIMES THE JUMPS (9000+), and more than twice as many years (30+ years) in the sport and several times as many tandem jumps (3000) as Sky4me has total jumps. You are wrong, though, and I'm happy to correct you: If you would read what I wrote instead of persisting in your own holier-than-thou attitude, you would see that I do not defend the TI in question; I use the FACT of his enormous, skill, experience and time-in-sport for what is called a CAUTIONARY TALE that focuses on the truth that if it can happen to him, it can sure happen to low-timers and newbies such as you and Sky4me -- and that with the attitudes both of you exhibit on this thread, it probably WILL. Really, dude, what you characterize as **** talking about other TIs is simply pointing out an attitude held by a TI that is in fact precisely the kind of attitude that results in these kinds of incidents. In so doing, you reveal yourself to be someone who holds the same attitude -- ignorant arrogance about something you think you know so much about but in reality have only the barest clue. It CAN happen to you, and until you can look yourself in the mirror and say "Yes, I can make those mistakes too," and "there but for the grace of God go I," you will remain a liability within the industry. Keep in mind that the previous fatal falls from harnesses all happened to TIs more experienced than either you or Sky4me, so enough with the pouting and listen up: The system I propose is designed to alleviate some of the stresses and judgment calls heaped upon the TIs in factory operations, leaving them the time and warning to better apply the knowledge, skill and experience they have accrued, thereby reducing system exposure to incidents such as the one in question, thereby preserving the economic model upon which turbine aircraft drop zone operations are based, thereby preserving the sport we also love so much that we argue about it online when we're not out there doing it. Love and kisses and a hearty Samuel to you too, 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
linebckr83 3 #164 October 30, 2012 Now that you got your paragraph of personal assumptions about me out of the way, we can continue. You failed to answer the one single question I asked. Why didn't his unlimited wisdom tell him to tell the passenger no, or to properly secure a harness instead of trying to look like a hotshot? Quote You are wrong, though, and I'm happy to correct you Since you felt the need to happily correct me, then you must disagree that a harness cannot be properly adjusted on a 15-minute call. That's what I asked to be corrected on did I not? Quote and that with the attitudes both of you exhibit on this thread, it probably WILL Please point out where in my post I referenced myself at all. Anything at all? Even a little? No didn't think so. So I'm not sure where you get off making assumptions about me being holier-than-thou or having an attitude. But you're right, people do (or almost do) fall out of harnesses every day. It's common and easy to do and I need to be much more careful in preventing that. The fact is it has happened twice before, and almost happened here again. There's always a possibility and I'm willing to bet any decent TI has it in the back of his mind. I sure do, which is why I religiously fit the harness properly before boarding the airplane, then check it several times after. Too bad he didn't feel the need to do it on that jump. Could this happen to me? Absolutely! It is my single biggest fear as a TI. You can quit claiming I have an "it'll never happen to me" attitude because I obviously don't. I do what I can on every single jump to prevent a disaster like that. Tons of experience or not, your hotshot TI failed when it counted. I have 10x more respect for a TI with 1000 tandems and no hiccups than one with 3000 tandems who about fucking killed someone out of gross neglect. Quote The system I propose is designed to alleviate some of the stresses and judgment calls heaped upon the TIs in factory operations, leaving them the time and warning to better apply the knowledge, skill and experience they have accrued, thereby reducing system exposure to incidents such as the one in question, thereby preserving the economic model upon which turbine aircraft drop zone operations are based, thereby preserving the sport we also love so much that we argue about it online when we're not out there doing it. The system you propose huh? Go ahead and incorporate your system if you think its not already being done in places outside Lodi. I for one can personally vouch for not taking students I was not comfortable with. As for the ones who I knew I could handle but had to be extra cautious, I put the fucking harness on right and didn't end up with a viral youtube video By the way, I personally don't care how long you've been jumping or how awesome you feel by talking like a dick. But a grumpy old skygod is just as bad as a newbie hotshot wannabe swooper. Except they are atleast fun to party with and usually have hot girlfriends. "Are you coming to the party? Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!" Flying Hellfish #828 Dudist #52 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sky4meplease 0 #165 October 30, 2012 I am not going to argue publicly with some one who has 38 years of skydiving experience about who is a low timer or a newbie. My guess is that in robinheid's eyes... everyone is and if that makes him feel better that's great. Robinheid is right that some students need more time pre-jump than others and any system that is put in place to give them that extra instruction would be worth the effort. I still think that once the wheels leave the ground it is not a system but a properly trained, respectful instructor with good common sense that will bring your student back safe.Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #166 October 30, 2012 Quote Now that you got your paragraph of personal assumptions about me out of the way, we can continue. You failed to answer the one single question I asked. Why didn't his unlimited wisdom tell him to tell the passenger no, or to properly secure a harness instead of trying to look like a hotshot? youll have to ask him that. I wasn't there. Why would you think I know the answer? Quote You are wrong, though, and I'm happy to correct you Since you felt the need to happily correct me, then you must disagree that a harness cannot be properly adjusted on a 15-minute call. That's what I asked to be corrected on did I not? Not as I read it. Please write more clearly next time. Quote and that with the attitudes both of you exhibit on this thread, it probably WILL Please point out where in my post I referenced myself at all. Anything at all? Even a little? No didn't think so. So I'm not sure where you get off making assumptions about me being holier-than-thou or having an attitude. But you're right, people do (or almost do) fall out of harnesses every day. It's common and easy to do and I need to be much more careful in preventing that. this post and the one preceding it reek of holier-than-thou. You aren't fit to carry that TI's jock, yet your attitude toward him is so superior with your 1/10th as many jumps and 1/8th as many years in the sport. And you're so clueless you don't even notice. Samuel Jackson, son. SAMUEL JACKSON. The fact is it has happened twice before, and almost happened here again. There's always a possibility and I'm willing to bet any decent TI has it in the back of his mind. I sure do, which is why I religiously fit the harness properly before boarding the airplane, then check it several times after. Too bad he didn't feel the need to do it on that jump. there you go, making assumptions again. You know only what you think you can see from a very incomplete video and you go on and on as if you were there. And guess what, Mr. Know-it-all-with-less-than-1K-jumps: One answer to your question is blazingly obvious in the video and you of course don't have a clue what it is or you woulda mentioned it by now. Could this happen to me? Absolutely! It is my single biggest fear as a TI. You can quit claiming I have an "it'll never happen to me" attitude because I obviously don't. I do what I can on every single jump to prevent a disaster like that. Tons of experience or not, your hotshot TI failed when it counted. I have 10x more respect for a TI with 1000 tandems and no hiccups than one with 3000 tandems who about fucking killed someone out of gross neglect. and it is this conclusion that's so dangerous because you just can't seem to get yer punkin haid around the concept that maybe he wasn't guilty of gross neglect, that, just like fatalities that appear to have occurred as a result of "gross neglect," there was an at-the-time logical event process that seemed to make sense at the time but only in retrospect did not. Again, you can see the precipitating element clearly in the video but of course you're so smart that you've already come to your conclusion so you can't see it. Here's a hint, though; it could happen to you no matter how securely you think you've fitted the harness. Again, this is what I mean by your dangerous attitude; your head is so full of what you think you know that there is no room in it to learn anything new and different, which we as a sport and individual TIs must do if this sub-set of sport parachuting (and all the turbines supported by it) are to survive. Quote The system I propose is designed to alleviate some of the stresses and judgment calls heaped upon the TIs in factory operations, leaving them the time and warning to better apply the knowledge, skill and experience they have accrued, thereby reducing system exposure to incidents such as the one in question, thereby preserving the economic model upon which turbine aircraft drop zone operations are based, thereby preserving the sport we also love so much that we argue about it online when we're not out there doing it. The system you propose huh? Go ahead and incorporate your system if you think its not already being done in places outside Lodi. I for one can personally vouch for not taking students I was not comfortable with. As for the ones who I knew I could handle but had to be extra cautious, I put the fucking harness on right and didn't end up with a viral youtube video you still don't get it. what you do personally as a TI is absolutely not what I suggest. Go back and read the pertinent parts of this thread and set aside your "I'm so good I always get it right" attitude so that maybe, just maybe, you might learn something. By the way, I personally don't care how long you've been jumping or how awesome you feel by talking like a dick. But a grumpy old skygod is just as bad as a newbie hotshot wannabe swooper. Except they are at least fun to party with and usually have hot girlfriends. Well, thanks for that, at least, but never fear; you newbie hotshots will eventually figure out how to party and get hot girlfriends just like the grumpy old skygods. But back to the subject at hand: Take it personally if you want, but when you've seen as much blood as I have, grumpy doesn't begin to describe how I feel when I hear you replaying the same tape I've heard for almost 40 years. If the in spec/out of spec system was incorporated across the factory operations, we wouldn't see any fall-out-of-harness fatalities or the multiple close calls which we don't see because except for this one the camera always malfunctions. You have not heard a word anyone has said about this systemic issue. You seem to think your hero TI attitude is going to see you through. So did those guys who watched their students separate from them. So did the TI in question who, after he made his mistakes, took the never-ever-give-up route and saved his passenger. So did all the guys who had calls as close as the one in question but whose camera flyers miraculously missed the jump. That is why systemic assembly line reform needs to be applied to our factory operations -- because we do in fact need more than the hero TI attitude to get us through. I always get a kick out of you arrogant snooty little know-it-all newbies. Five years from now you'll be dead or gone from the sport and I'll still be here jumping and pissing off the next generation of newbie know-it-alls. Peace out, son, and I hope you get it before it gets you. LOL... 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #167 October 30, 2012 Quote Robinheid is right that some students need more time pre-jump than others and any system that is put in place to give them that extra instruction would be worth the effort. I still think that once the wheels leave the ground it is not a system but a properly trained, respectful instructor with good common sense that will bring your student back safe. +1 Elegantly stated. Peace out. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
linebckr83 3 #168 October 31, 2012 I had a ridiculously long reply typed out but my internet crashed while posting it. Probably a good move since, from reading your other threads, arguing with you is beyond pointless. You maintain a different mentality about many things, more power to you I suppose. Please answer me this though. In the apparently "very incomplete" video, you can see the woman walking to the plane with a harness that's not even close to properly adjusted, can you not? In the airplane while moving to the door, her head is about level with the TI's abdomen, is it not? I've never seen a properly adjusted harness have anywhere near that range of movement. How is this not negligence on his part? Could it have happened on a properly adjusted harness? Absolutely. Is it much more likely on an improperly adjusted harness? Apparently so. What was this argument even about? I said you were wrongly defending the TI which you claim is false. You think I dont agree with a system to weed out potentially unsafe tandem students, which is also false as I clearly stated. I don't like grumpy old guys with consdescending attitudes, and you don't like newbie hot shots with hot girlfriends. I think I do everything in my power to make every tandem jump I make as safe as possible. That includes understanding the risk and potential for disaster, and doing whatever I can to prevent it which includes turning away those who are not fit to make a skydive. With each jump I learn new techniques and skills to make every other skydive safer. What more would you like me to do? In the end, the big difference is that come saturday I will be doing my job at a small 182 dz where I get to know every tandem student, can adequately decide if jumping is in their best interest or not, and can perform my job uninterrupted. I don't have to deal with the same Lodi or turbine dz bullshit that you do, which is probably why you're a grumpy old dude in the first place. Cheers! And try to be nicer to the little kids coming to your house tonight or they won't like you either. "Are you coming to the party? Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!" Flying Hellfish #828 Dudist #52 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sky4meplease 0 #169 November 1, 2012 QuoteI had a ridiculously long reply typed out but my internet crashed while posting it. Probably a good move since, from reading your other threads, arguing with you is beyond pointless. I too at some point had a long speech typed out for robinheid and decided to delete it. I came to the conclusion that this is a man probably my fathers age and my father is a little crusty as well. I also realized I was five years old when robinheid started skydiving and that deserves my respect. Sadly enough the instructors who really need to read this thread and others like it probably don't.Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #170 November 1, 2012 I hope you're just playing devils advocate, because I think defending the T-I's incompetence, the DZO's deplorable (recent) safety record and lack of following industry "standards", to be morally weak and ethically anorexic. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #171 November 1, 2012 Quote Quote I had a ridiculously long reply typed out but my internet crashed while posting it. Probably a good move since, from reading your other threads, arguing with you is beyond pointless. I too at some point had a long speech typed out for robinheid and decided to delete it. I came to the conclusion that this is a man probably my fathers age and my father is a little crusty as well. I also realized I was five years old when robinheid started skydiving and that deserves my respect. Sadly enough the instructors who really need to read this thread and others like it probably don't. Sigh... another +1 And an apology is in order... your last two posts make it clear that I misjudged your intent and character when I responded to your first posts. My apologies and good on ya, mate, for hanging in there anyway. I look forward to meeting you some day. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #172 November 1, 2012 Quote I hope you're just playing devils advocate, because I think defending the T-I's incompetence, the DZO's deplorable (recent) safety record and lack of following industry "standards", to be morally weak and ethically anorexic. Matt Well, as the great Hugh Akston once said, when you're faced with an apparent contradiciton, check your premises. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sky4meplease 0 #173 November 1, 2012 QuoteI hope you're just playing devils advocate, because I think defending the T-I's incompetence, the DZO's deplorable (recent) safety record and lack of following industry "standards", to be morally weak and ethically anorexic. QuoteIf you would read what I wrote instead of persisting in your own holier-than-thou attitude, you would see that I do not defend the TI in question; I use the FACT of his enormous, skill, experience and time-in-sport for what is called a CAUTIONARY TALE that focuses on the truth that if it can happen to him, it can sure happen to low-timers and newbies such as you and Sky4me Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sky4meplease 0 #174 November 1, 2012 QuoteMy apologies and good on ya, mate, for hanging in there anyway. I look forward to meeting you some day. Apology accepted. Thank you. I look forward to meeting you as well.Overkill is under rated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hparrish 0 #175 November 1, 2012 Bill Dause is single handedly causing irreversible damage to our sport, and since he is not a USPA Member dropzone there is little USPA can do about him. Unfortunately the FAA can do something about him,has, is,and I'm glad they are giving him the attention he is begging for. It sucks that he's willing to take our hole sport down his shithole with him. Not that he will, but Thea fact that he doesn't seem to care is BS. And I'm glad the FAA is fining this Shitbag TI !!! I think he's getting off light, but I'm positive that all of his ratings have been pulled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
