Nullified

Quote

Well then, what do YOU think Mike, in response to this? ...You got the letter, and then you posted it here. But I haven't seen your response or further thoughts yet as to it all.

Actually, I have posted some other thoughts in this thread.

Quote

Are CReW dogs and sub-say 300-400 jump total jump wonders mutually incompatable based upon what Scotty is saying?

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

Quote

Just to clarify some points. The jump in question was not a 12 way. There were about 11-12 CRW participants in the air, but they were spread between 2 different groups. The largest formation attempted and built at the camp was a 9-way diamond on the last jump Sunday.

The jumps were kept relatively small and simple to build skills. There were really only 2 participants who could have been called beginners (very few to no CRW jumps). Both of these individuals were kept at very low wingloadings until they showed that they were capable of flying something smaller/heavier. The rest of the participants had atleast 50 CRW jumps, or atleast had several hundred skydives of experience.

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

Quote

Wendy, what are your thoughts on having someone on a much lighter loading on larger formations? The jumper that this thread was started about was on a 12 way at the time of the incident. Is it a problem to have one person at a 1:1 loading with everyone else higher then that on a formation of that size?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Most likely you couldn't go that radically different. You'd need to keep the formations a smaller size if you're going to mix wing-loadings.

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

Chuck, thank you.

Stay safe,
Mike

Quote

Mike, first off I'm truly sorry for your friend. My point was in response to the incident report which indicates a hard low turn at 50 feet. Chuck.

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

Quote

My point is that a hard toggle turn at 50 feet is the wrong move no matter what wingloading. If you absolutely, positively have to turn at that altitude it's better to do a flat turn so the canopy doesn't dive.

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

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

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

Quote

The sport is dangerous. The DZ is not knowingly going to put your life in danger. I mean seriously.

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

Quote

They say... well, ok, but you know, I'll let you use it as long as you promise not to blame me if you get hurt.... because you know that thing called "human error" well, all my employees are human, and they're not perfect and ...
And well duh, the moment I'm gonna sue someone for not being perfect will be the moment I declare to the world "I AM PERFECT"

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

Quote

I mean really people!!!!

If you cannot handle the sport then stop jumping all together.

The issue is not the sport. Don't misrepresent the issue like this.

Quote

One on a person who obviously does not know how to pack or does not realize that they are opening in a track! Almost all canopies have the same ratio of hard openings. If you want to be sure of an opening then pack for yourself like I do. Quit Bitching and blaming the canopy for your lack of skills!!!!!!!!

This appears to be directed towards one specific person, and I would agree with you in this case.

Quote

Bottom line is, as there was a thread on it, you had better be reading that waiver you sign!! You are releasing almost all of your rights! If you cannot accept this then do not jump!!!!!!!!!!

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.

Quote

It must be all these new poeple to the sport because I do not recall of this wining B.S. Years ago!!!!

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.

Quote

Accept all that goes with the sport or leave it!!!!!!!!

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

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

Quote

>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.

So you sign it believing that the waiver is untrue?

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.

Quote

>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.

I have seen JM's do just that. Did they do it maliciously? No; the student was passing through 3000 feet and the reserve side fired the reserve just as the main side pulled the main. The student (fortunately) cut away when he saw the resulting mess and cleared the main. But the result was similar to what you describe, and there's no way to prove whether the JM's did it maliciously or not. (And surely if you believe there are JM's who will do that, you can believe they will lie about it.)

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?

Quote

And thus another lawsuit is started, a lawsuit that will make another 20 laywers rich and put another DZ out of business. I suppose that's the future of the sport - the DZ with the best lawyers wins.

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

Quote

If he gave you a form, and it said "I agree to not hit you even if you're strung out on drugs and you attack me with intent to kill me" - would you sign it? If not, why not?

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.

Quote

Often in life you don't get warnings about what your kids will do, about what nature will throw at you, about what chance has in store for you. Skydiving's an exception. There's a form you sign that tells you EXACTLY what can happen. You may decide that you would sue them if they hired a drunken fool as a pilot and didn't repack their reserves; there's absolutely no problem with that. The solution - don't sign the waiver. Don't wait until you're on the plane with a moldy reserve and drunk pilot to decide you don't want to take those risks.

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.

Quote

If your answer is "but I really want to jump; everyone ignores the waiver!" then realize that you are essentially lying to get what you want. You don't really agree, but your signature lets you get what you want, and you know you can legally back out of your word later.

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

Quote

>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"???

That's exactly right! And if you have a problem with that attitude (which is certainly a selfish one) then the time to decide that is BEFORE YOU SIGN THE WAIVER.

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

Quote

>In this case you should sue. It's your civic duty to sue.

It's your moral duty to keep your word.

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

Quote

Sometimes I think we have to wonder what the world is coming to. People seem less and less to want to take any responsibility for themselves.

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

Quote

infury or cause death.

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

Quote

Personally I agree with Bill and Lisa, but I understand that other people feel differently. It would be interesting to know how many of those people also say or claim that skydiving is safe.

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

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OK, this is a very unlikely and extreme scenario, but would you agree in this situation?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nope. I wouldn't sue. I would expect that the DZO would offer to pay my medical expenses, but I wouldn't sue him.

There is no skydiving related situation/incident that would cause me to sue skydivers.

I don't expect everybody to agree with how I choose to interpret signing a waiver. I care more about my sport and the people who participate in it than I do about my legal rights.

Perhaps that makes me naive. I'm okay with that.

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

Quote

I could give a rat's ass who a packer is or isn't working under the supervision of. That rig (all of it, including the reserve) is my responsibility from the second I put it on until the second I take it off.

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

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

Quote

Gross negligence is criminal and would be handled by the local authorities.

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

Quote

I'm not sure the cable lengths on the different rigs. I know the reserve cable is different on the rigs and I think the cutaway is also.

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

Quote

For me this is about personal integrity. When I sign a waiver I feel I am giving my word that I won't sue - period.

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