scl

The fact that a DZO is testing does not preclude any of these other safety measures. DZOs are all intelligent hardworking dudes, and using a test only shows that they know they are not qualified to determine drug use, and that they are aware that they might not be the best judge of someone's potential impairment. Are you suggesting that each TM check in with the DZO before work every day and convince him verbally of their competency? Or that the DZO go around sniffing everyone's breath, shining a light in everyone's pupils, and asking everyone to walk a line? I think if the DZO insisted on knowing the details of everyone's life every single day, there would be a lot more uproar about "invasion of privacy," and besides, if these types of "precautions" still failed, and a student went in, the DZO would have it on his shoulders that he didn't "catch" that one, when in reality, he can't be expected to.

If a DZ posts on their website that they are "the safest place to jump" or a "a real family atmposphere" or "the best fun in the sky" or any other positive claim, would we attack them for bashing other DZs by insinuation? If you're taking extra steps (maybe not foolproof ones, but all you can do) to make your business even a tiny bit more safe, why not advertise it? There are DZs who advertise that all their riggers are FAA-certified--not because they're trying to insinuate that others' aren't, but because many whuffos won't know this, and it gives them a little more confidence about making that first jump. We're all in the same business here, and what hurts or helps one DZ hurts or helps us all. A bad lawsuit against one skydiving operation hurts the image of the entire industry--by one DZO implementing drug testing, he is probably just trying to keep his DZ from being the next one to cause us all bad press.

No drug testing will not elimiate hangovers, tiredness, idoicy, or lots of other things that make a JM less competent. It may not eliminate drug use by staff all together. But there are only a few things a DZO can control about his staff, and the rest he has to leave up to trust, that his staff will make the right decisions. DZOs are in a tough position because when choosing potential staff, they have to decide "who is least likely to get my customers killed?" Any employer takes risks on new hires, but few take a risk this great. Even with drug testing, the DZO is still going to have to have lotsa faith in his staff, and monitor them carefully throughout the season--who comes in hungover? who can't flare? who forgets to debrief his students?--I would bet that most DZOs watch these things in all their employees. Drug testing is just another precaution, implemented in many cases only when former employees made stupid mistakes. As for personal liberties, no one has a constitutional right to be employed at any particular dz. I don't think it's discrimination that someplace won't hire me as a TM just because I choose not to have a TM rating. It's the business owner's responsibility to determine to the best of his ability whether or not you are qualified to do the job safely. He only has a few tools at his disposal for making that determination. It would be nice if we could all just trust each other, but too many staff members have violated that trust and caused DZOs to get burned.

I'm confused. In the version of Roger's email that I received, all he said was that all instructors would be tested this year, and any instructor who didn't want to be tested was free to work somewhere else. How is that name calling or dragging other DZs down to any "level"? Maybe I didn't read thoroughly enough. (BTW, I don't know any regular SDC jumper who categorically dislikes other DZs. If there's a rivalry, it's one-sided.)

Even after the threat of British resistance disappeared, we might have preserved our right to CCW, but we created the need to regualte that right when we started using those firearms against fellow Americans in any situation we felt necessary.

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that in this story, which is supposed to convince us of the necessity of firearms for protection, that the victim was attacked with a handgun? The very rights which the author is fighting for are the ones that put him in such great danger in the first place. No, I don't think that right should be taken away, but to assert that more citizens having guns will make the world a safer place is a little backwards, to say the least, and this story illustrates that quite well. Actually, as I got into the article, I thought maybe it was an anti-gun piece. Ask any ghetto mother if she thinks her dead son would have been better off if his gang brothers had only had more and bigger guns than their rivals. Also, in thinking about one's own personal protection, we can't forget that whatever weapon we carry has the potential to be turned against us. In my short time working with police and security, I heard many stories of criminals using someone else's weapon for an assault, but no successful stories of victims turning a situation around with their own weapon. For this reason, every cop I asked about how to protect myself suggested non-lethal weapons such as pepper spray, and good training in "how to kick somebody's butt who's bigger than you." Oh yeah, don't forget, if you own a gun and use it against somebody who's assaulting you, and you wound or kill him or her, you could be the one doing serious jail time if you can't prove that it was your last resort in saving your own life. The bottom line is, the more guns that are out there, the more shots are likely to get fired, and that's never good. I don't see anything wrong ith shooting for sport, and I have enjoyed it myself; but there is a HUGE difference between that and having a handgun on the ready at all times for any possible "attack." I'm sorry for what happened to the man in this article, and I hope restrictions on handgun laws are not lifted so that this does not happen to more people.

It's the tandem instructor's responsibility to steer around you, since you're in front of him. He probably was totally aware of you and planning to land right next to you, which is why the cameraman didn't say anything. I think a lot of students aren't aware of how much control we have over the canopy, like we just pull a magic handle and the rest is out of our hands. (hence questions like "what if it doesn't open?") Good thing we do have that nifty thing called steering, otherwise the entire landing area would be filled with jumpers yelling like that student: "Look out! Incommiiiiing!!!"

The test: would you have to hide what you did? If you're doing something you would really not want your mate to find out about, you got issues, man. (Of course that excludes surprise parties )

Hello, my name is Sarah, and I am. . . a lurker. I feel better now. I, probably like lots of lurkers out there, just never felt the urge to add to the conversation. But since you asked... From a (recovering) lurker: Other reasons people might lurk -registered users who just haven't logged on yet b/c they're only reading -brand-newbies or people who have never jumped, just looking for info -whuffo friends/family of jumpers who are trying to secretly figure out what goes on in THAT world -computer-hypochindriacs, those people who never sign up for anything online, for fear their computer will "catch" a virus or they will accidentally email porn to their boss But there are members-only forums out there, aren't there? And there are sections of dz.com that are members-only, I think. Now that I'm official, I'm off to infiltrate. . . -Hi, I'm Sarah, bye!