Nullified

Actually, I have posted some other thoughts in this thread. No, not at all. As several people have mentioned in this forum and the CReWDog mailing list, having more precisely matched canopies becomes a greater issue as the size and / or complexity of the formation increases. For more experienced jumpers, this wouldn't be an issue as they are more prepared to deal with higher wing loadings. The safety issue of wing loading becomes relavent when we're discussing people who are fairly new jumpers. For these people, maybe that means that they aren't able to participate in a 9-way diamond. Is this really a bad thing? Maybe it means that they're going to end up spending more time honing their approach and docking skills or piloting skills. Maybe the approach is to have several different types of camps. In the RW world there are several different level skills camps available. Some are open to all, and others have prerequisites. The prerequisites can vary. As everyone is aware, the CReW community is quite small compared with other disciplines, and there are only a handful of people who are qualified to safely instruct and coach a skills camp, and they only have so much time. This makes it a bit more difficult to have coaches and organizers available, and would make it very difficult to begin splitting up all the various skill levels of participants for camps. As with many things, coming up with a good and realistically implementable solution is not always as easy as we'd like. I don't have the answer, and that's why I've brought this it. Hopefully this discussion will continue, and maybe in the process we'll be able to come up with a good solution. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Vadim, Thanks for clearing up a few things. You all need to understand, I'm not a wingload nazi, and I'm not questioning the judgment of these particular instructors or commenting directly on this specific camp or incident. My observations and thoughts are much more 'in general'. So, in general... Most of us probably agree that there's more to determining whether or not someone is ready for a particular wingloading than observing a few landings under another canopy under pleasant conditions. There have been several posts by many people on these forums addressing suggested agenda to meet when considering downsizing, especially when changing planforms is part of the equation. I think that is something to consider when determining what size canopy to suggest to someone for any reason. Because of the compatability requirements for certain CReW formations, in general we tend to be less rigid regarding how we determine what canopy we recommend to people. I'm not an instructor, and I certainly am no expert, but I've been guilty of this as well. I've never suggested a high wingloading to low number jumpers who've approached me about CReW, but I certainly haven't deterred them from higher loadings as well as I probably should have, considering that if the canopy in question had been a Sabre2 with a similar loading, I would have been more vocal. Hey, nobody's perfect and there are always ways to improve everything. I think this a good discussion, and I don't feel that there's any reason for anyone to feel insulted, offended or attacked by these issues being questioned and further discussed. Thanks, everyone. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Wendy, If working on larger formations (I'm talking about say, 12-ways) what do you feel that the +/- area that wing loadings should remain within is? If someone were loading a 143 at ~1:1, and were wearing weights to bring their loading to ~1.2, would this satisfy compatability issues? Also, and I'm not implying that there is an absolute right or wrong answer to this, I think we should ask ourselves what is the immediate and short term goal of these CReW camps. What I mean is, is it necessary in every case to finish the camp with everyone in a single formation with many of the participants pushing the limit of their brand new abilities? I'm not criticizing this practice. Just wondering if maybe it would make more sense in some casesto stick with less complex formations and concentrate on honing the new skills rather than trying to engineer the largest most complex dive for the camp to go out in a bang with? As someone expressed on the mailing list, these camps are not about training for the next world record, but about teaching basic skills and how to safely use them. Nobody needs to be held back. If there are intermediate participants, I'm sure that there are other skills that can be worked on. Maybe an intro to 4-way sequential. May be an intro to top docking. I appreciate that finishing these camps with a bang is a wonderful thing. It's a great sense of accomplishment and pride for the instructors and participants. It's not my intention to insult the instructors who run these camps. I have a great deal of respect for them. But, there are always ways to improve things, and that begins with discussion. What do you think? Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Chuck, thank you. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

I know that all aspects of this are going to end up being discussed, but the point of Scott's e-mail was to question our general approach to wing loadings with regard to low time jumpers learning CReW. Nobody is saying that a low turn is good in any situation. As this incident has found it's way to the incident forum, I would appreciate it if on forum, we can stay focused on the WL approach, and not make this about low turns. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

That's not really the point. Nobody is claiming that the canopy is at fault. The point that Scott is trying to make is that, why is putting someone under a Lightning 126 any wiser than putting that same person under another canopy at that WL? This incident prompted the e-mail, but discussing whether low turns are bad or not, is not the issue. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

I just received this e-mail from Scott Miller. I hope that you will ALL read this slowly and completely. I'm also asking you ALL to post your thoughts. Everyone. 30 jumps or 9000 jumps. Stay safe, Mike Hi Mike, Thanks for passing on the information about *****. I’m sending some good thoughts her way. But first, I’m going to rant a little. And I’m sending this your way because I consider you a friend, and I think you’ll understand and forgive me for ranting. I also think that maybe you’re in a position to help improve the situation I’m going to rant about. When ***** went through my canopy course at Sky’s The Limit in September, she had 83 jumps, was flying a Sabre 190, and listed her exit weight at 170 lbs. I got this information from the registration form she filled out. That was five months ago. How many jumps has she made since then? It’s wintertime and she lives up North. Has she been jumping a whole lot? Has she made 100 jumps since September? Has she even made 50? What the FUCK was she doing under a Lightning 126? I’ve seen this happen more than once: a low-time jumper gets interested in CRW, and pretty soon her new CRW buddies want her to jump some ridiculously small canopy that she really has no business jumping, just so she will be at the “right” wing loading for CRW. Does anybody stop for a minute and consider the fact that you still have to land after a CRW jump? I understand the need for compatible canopies, but I also know that low-time jumpers make mistakes, and they need canopies that will allow them to survive those mistakes. If someone like ***** showed up on the DZ and said “hey everyone, I’m going to jump a Stiletto 120,” what would happen? People would tell her she’s crazy. At least one or two experienced jumpers would probably spend the next 20 minutes with her explaining why that would be a bad idea. But if the same person says “I want to do CRW,” some “experienced” CRW dog will soon be telling her she needs a Lightning 126. Does this really make sense? Do people really think a Lightning loaded just under 1.4 to 1 is any safer than a Stiletto loaded just over 1.4 to 1? I think either one would be an equally bad idea for a low-time jumper. And by the way, I’ve jumped every size Stiletto and every size Lightning PD makes, but if someone disagrees with me about this I will be happy to sit down and listen to the person explain why. And if the person says “because the Stiletto is elliptical” I’ll probably piss my pants laughing. I may be ranting like this because I feel a little guilty. When I met ***** in September, she told me she wanted to try CRW. I told her that it was a great idea. I told her that she would have fun, and learn a lot about flying a canopy. That’s what I always tell people about CRW. I’m starting to re-think that advice, though. Maybe I should tell low-time jumpers to stay as far away from the CRW dogs as possible, until some of them pull their heads out of their asses and stop telling people like ***** they need to be under a 126 loaded at 1.38 to 1. Mike, please feel free to post this message anywhere you want, or forward it to anyone you want to. It might piss some people off, but frankly I don’t care. These are my own opinions, not those of anyone I work for now or have worked for in the past, and I’m tired of being diplomatic about things like this. I hope you stay involved in CRW, Mike, and I hope you have the chance to teach other people who want to try it. I also hope you agree with at least some of what I’ve written here, and keep it in mind. Low-time jumpers need relatively large, forgiving canopies. This fact does not change just because someone wants to learn CRW. If experienced CRW jumpers want to jump with low-timers, why not use larger canopies and give the low-timers half a chance to land safely? Take care. - Scott If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Hi everyone. Some may feel that this post belongs in the CReW forum, and it does...it's there, too. It also belongs here. I received this e-mail from Scott Miller, and with his permission, I'm posting it here. Here we go; Hi Mike, Thanks for passing on the information about *****. I’m sending some good thoughts her way. But first, I’m going to rant a little. And I’m sending this your way because I consider you a friend, and I think you’ll understand and forgive me for ranting. I also think that maybe you’re in a position to help improve the situation I’m going to rant about. When ***** went through my canopy course at Sky’s The Limit in September, she had 83 jumps, was flying a Sabre 190, and listed her exit weight at 170 lbs. I got this information from the registration form she filled out. That was five months ago. How many jumps has she made since then? It’s wintertime and she lives up North. Has she been jumping a whole lot? Has she made 100 jumps since September? Has she even made 50? What the FUCK was she doing under a Lightning 126? I’ve seen this happen more than once: a low-time jumper gets interested in CRW, and pretty soon her new CRW buddies want her to jump some ridiculously small canopy that she really has no business jumping, just so she will be at the “right” wing loading for CRW. Does anybody stop for a minute and consider the fact that you still have to land after a CRW jump? I understand the need for compatible canopies, but I also know that low-time jumpers make mistakes, and they need canopies that will allow them to survive those mistakes. If someone like ***** showed up on the DZ and said “hey everyone, I’m going to jump a Stiletto 120,” what would happen? People would tell her she’s crazy. At least one or two experienced jumpers would probably spend the next 20 minutes with her explaining why that would be a bad idea. But if the same person says “I want to do CRW,” some “experienced” CRW dog will soon be telling her she needs a Lightning 126. Does this really make sense? Do people really think a Lightning loaded just under 1.4 to 1 is any safer than a Stiletto loaded just over 1.4 to 1? I think either one would be an equally bad idea for a low-time jumper. And by the way, I’ve jumped every size Stiletto and every size Lightning PD makes, but if someone disagrees with me about this I will be happy to sit down and listen to the person explain why. And if the person says “because the Stiletto is elliptical” I’ll probably piss my pants laughing. I may be ranting like this because I feel a little guilty. When I met ***** in September, she told me she wanted to try CRW. I told her that it was a great idea. I told her that she would have fun, and learn a lot about flying a canopy. That’s what I always tell people about CRW. I’m starting to re-think that advice, though. Maybe I should tell low-time jumpers to stay as far away from the CRW dogs as possible, until some of them pull their heads out of their asses and stop telling people like ***** they need to be under a 126 loaded at 1.38 to 1. Mike, please feel free to post this message anywhere you want, or forward it to anyone you want to. It might piss some people off, but frankly I don’t care. These are my own opinions, not those of anyone I work for now or have worked for in the past, and I’m tired of being diplomatic about things like this. I hope you stay involved in CRW, Mike, and I hope you have the chance to teach other people who want to try it. I also hope you agree with at least some of what I’ve written here, and keep it in mind. Low-time jumpers need relatively large, forgiving canopies. This fact does not change just because someone wants to learn CRW. If experienced CRW jumpers want to jump with low-timers, why not use larger canopies and give the low-timers half a chance to land safely? Take care. - Scott If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Yeah well, the question is, if they do, then how would you feel about this? According to the waiver, they can knowingly put your life in serious danger. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Again, this is a statement that does NOT accurately represent the issue that we're discussing. Human error and accidents are not the issue. The issue is gross and criminal negligence. Enormous difference. Please realize this. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

The issue is not the sport. Don't misrepresent the issue like this. This appears to be directed towards one specific person, and I would agree with you in this case. Almost all your rights...correct. There are rights that you can't sign away, and the DZO and their lawyers know that...even if they would try to have you believe otherwise. I see people of varying experience levels on both sides of this discussion. It's always easy to blame it on the newbies. It makes one feel special, I guess. I accept all that goes with the sport. Gross and criminal negligence, however much someone will hope that you accept otherwise, isn't part of any sport. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Is there any way that all these many sue threads could be combined in to one? Is there really a reason to have a thread 'about' another thread 'about' a thread? Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Untrue and invalid are two different things. The waiver certainly is correct in presenting to me the very real fact that absolutely anything can happen, that nothing is impossible. That doesn't necessarily mean that the waiver is representative of the spirit of the DZ regarding the value that they place on human life. If I had any reason to believe that a DZ truly had such little regard for human life that they would intentionally and knowingly allow and foster a disaster waiting to happen, I would never jump there. Even though it's in the waiver, I sign it under the reasonable assumption that the DZO isn't going to be behind the hangar with the pilot, smoking crack before load 1 goes up, that they do have our safety in mind and are making at least some effort to not create an unreasonable level of extra danger. I know why they're worded that way, to cover their asses as completely as possible. In this day, yes, there are people who will sue even when things are their own fault. I'm not, NOR will I sue in the event of an accident at the DZ. Bill, that's a 180* different situation that I described. I would NEVER sue a JM if he or she inadvertantly hurt me while trying to save my life. Completely different scenario. Assuming that the JM fessed up and said, "Yeah, at 8 grand I decided to have some fun with student Mike. I figured he'd have time to clear the mess, but I guess it was unrecoverable afterall. Sure was cool to see, though", and then the crackhead DZO chimed in with, "Yeah, we do that to students sometimes, this is the first time it went bad, though", you'd still take issue with me initiating a lawsuit? You know, you're painting me as a petty litigious person by making a comment like that. I'm talking about extreme cases. Cases in which the DZ(O) should be put and kept out of business. Would you want this hypothetical DZ operating? Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

I'd take him to a psychiatrist. No, I wouldn't sign it. And if anyone is going to quote me on anything in this post and reply, quote everything so that it's in context. I wouldn't sign it because there'd be no reason to. If I believed that there was a chance of that actually being the case, I wouldn't sign the waiver. I'd never want to jump at a place like that. I WOULD NOT sue if a TM brainfarts and hooks me into the ground. I WOULD sue if a JM decided to have some fun with me by pulling my reserve handle and deploying my main, and I ended up spiraling in to the ground with a main / reserve entanglement. Technically speaking, yes, this makes me a liar. Such an extreme situation, I feel, justifies me in breaking my word. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

I do indeed have a problem with that attitude. As I also posted in the reply from which you quoted me, there is a line. If the DZO knew that the pilot was on crack, didn't care, and I end up injured as a result, that is where the line is crossed. Anyone who would knowingly allow that situation to exist isn't worth keeping a promise to. They'd be the trash of the earth and I'd be quite morally comfortable suing their asses off, getting them out of the business and keeping them out of the business for the rest of their pathetic lives. Fuckups are one thing...willingly allowing a deathtrap to spring is another. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

As I stated in another post, I agree 99.9% of the time with this. But, if I have a Son and swear to him that I'll never hit him, and then at 16 years old he's out of his mind on crack and comes at me with a knife, guess what...I'll knock him on his ass. Don't fool yourself into believeing that anything is unconditional. No promise, no great love, nothing. There IS a line that can be crossed. Stay safe, Mike Edited for spelling If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Hmmm, with an attitude like that, I'm surprised that you're not on the other side of this debate. I mean, isn't the waiver in effect saying, "We won't be held responsible for our own fuckups that kill or injur you, even if we knew that we were fucking up and just didn't care"??? Interesting perspective. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Sorry, I don't generally reply with stupid comments like this (mine, not yours) but I thought that your typo, "Infury" was pretty funny and strangely appropriate! Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

I also agree 99.9% with them. However, if a pilot on crack flies the Otter into the hanger on takeoff, you won't find me laying in the burn unit, proudly tapping out in Morse code that I have superior integrity because I won't sue. By the way, I don't think Skydiving is safe. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

I don't have any problem at all with your feelings towards this. That would be your decision and I respect that completely. I will say this...If the person in question weren't drunk or on crack or whatever, I wouldn't sue. It was an accident...a really stupid and bad one, but an accident nonetheless. Hopefully, either way, this person would take it upon themself to help get me through whatever crippled state they've put me in. Only thing I will say is, if a drunk driver took me out on the road, I'd sue. Why would having a canopy over your head be any different than being behind the wheel of a car? I won't criticize you for how you'd handle this or a similar situation, but I do feel that you'd have every right, morally, ethically and legally to seek reperations by any means necessary. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

FAA doesn't quite see it that way. I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but there are laws regarding supervision of packing mains and reserves. If and when the FAA shows up on your DZ, I'll bet somebody will be 'giving a rat's ass' pretty damn quickly. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Usually I wear a cheap $14.00 protec knockoff from Walmart. Open face and ears allow for verbal communication while doing CReW. On the rare occassions when I do RW, I use an Oxygn. Good for facial protection against kicks and elbows. I do hate it though, once I'm under canopy. I can't really hear the air around me, and I feel like I've lost one of my senses. I know it sounds strange, but it really bothers me. I also find the visor to be distracting. Same with goggles and sunglasses, which I never wear while skydiving. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

And you don't think that this is an indication that sueing would also be an appropriate course of action? Hmmm, the drunk pilot crashed in to the hangar on takeoff...the authorities will take appropriate action...but I'll lay in the burn unit comforted by the fact that I showed personal integrity by not sueing to help pay for my medical bills et cetera. "Try chess" is not an appropriate reply here. It may seem to be the cool thing to say, but it's not. A waiver isn't a license to kill or cause harm. Only James Bond has one of those. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

I don't know the answer. He did order one for me though, so I'll find out when it comes in. If it's longer than I need, it can always be cut. If it's shorter, that could be an issue. When I get everything reassembled again, I'll give you an answer from experience. As I said though, the guy is a very experienced jumper and rigger, so I'm inclined to trust him on this. I'll know for sure soon! Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

So, in an uncongested landing area, you've just come to a stop following a nice docile straight in approach. Before your canopy has a chance to touch the ground, the DZO swoops in to you from straight behind you and breaks your back. You find out that he or she had been smoking crack before the load. In my opinion, this scenario does not fit the spirit of the agreement that I made when signing the waiver, and I would sue. OK, this is a very unlikely and extreme scenario, but would you agree in this situation? Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.