robinheid

+1 Indeed, said **** being defined as the unfair, ill-conceived, inaccuracte, fact-challenged, and/or off-topic attacks being made on someone who has contributed and will continue to contribute more to sport parachuting than all his detractors on this thread combined -- times ten. At least. 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."

What you think I "suggest" is a product of your imagination, not what I actually wrote. Ergo, any conclusion you draw based on that suggestion is invalid. 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."

Not if it is done correctly. It cannot be done correctly. If you are not strapped into a real seat the way the aircraft was designed, the risk of injury or death in a crash is greater. Period... all to save a buck by stuffing more people into the a/c than it was designed to carry. FYI, this is a big deal in Japan, where they only let the planes carry as many jumpers as they could carry passengers if the seats were in the plane. Not if it is done correctly. It cannot be done correctly. Whenever we jump from a plane in flight, we're dead until we do something about it. This is like saying letting a kid play in traffic does not put the kid's life in jeopardy if done correctly. If you let someone jump out of your plane, you are enabling them to put their lives in jeopardy,. you are aiding and abetting the putting of their lives in jeopardy. Not if it is done correctly. LOL. Think how many DZs over the years have been sued out of existence even though they did everything correctly. The reason is simple: To a lawyer, a drop zone operation cannot be done correctly. Yes. 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."

Hey, maybe Bill logs jumps like he fills out aircraft log books ;^) I think if he had filled out his aircraft (maintenance) logs the way you imply, then there would not be a thread called "FAA to fine Lodi $664,000." 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."

Not hard to imagine that a DZ that skips MX could have more MX issues than a DZ that does the proper MX. key word: "imagine." If I recall correctly, Bill did not have an actual MX issue; he had an FAA compliance issue. Or am I imagining that? 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."

Until now I have not contributed, but as someone who has never been to Lodi, knows nothing about Bill and his history (other than what I have read here), who doesn't know you, or anyone else in this discussion and as someone who served as an aircraft mechanic who has changed hundreds of perfectly good parts because they have timed out, I have to say that when I first read your 'skydiving is dangerous' comment I came to the same conclusion about what you wrote. I was not biased, prejudiced, nor had any preconceptions as I read it. Then I respectfully submit that you re-read what you think you read until you get it instead of arriving at a conclusion influenced not by actual content but by the bias, prejudice and pre-conceived notions advanced by 95 percent of the posters on either side of that one. 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."

Actually he has one of if not THE worst safety records in the business. He has had 10 fatalities in the past 10 years...in the 10 years prior to that...10 fatalities! (and yes I can provide the proof for that if needed) He has averaged a death a year at his drop zone for the past 20 years. I can't think of another drop zone that comes anywhere close (note that I am NOT counting aircraft crashes where multiple skydivers die at once). That's not even including all the people he has had slam into electrical wires, the people who have had their legs amputated because they had less than 25 jumps and Bill allowed them to be jumping with another sub-25 jumper (USPA chastised Bill for that one), nor all the other "incidents" that seem to plague his center. To the best of my knowledge Bill Dause has done nothing for the sport but provide CHEAP tickets, which is why people love him (that and he doesn't require re-currency jumps, or waivers, current reserves or really make any safety mandates whatsoever). Please don't make him out to be Bill Booth or Lew Sanborn...true pioneers who have worked diligently to contribute to the safety and beauty of our sport. Oh I forgot, Bill invented the skyhook or was it the three-ring release system, oh no my bad....it was the pilot chute that Bill invented. Didn't you know Bill invented tracking too. We are all too blessed! Where would we be without his amazing contributions! If he had done SOOO much for our sport he would have awards and been recognized as a "pioneer" and a "contributor" but those articles and awards don't exist because all that he has supposedly "done" to help the sport is as ficticious as his MX records. So far numerous people have asked "What has Bill done for the sport of skydiving?" and what was your response.... I'm sorry Bill's 30,000+ jumps (if in fact he did that many) did not CONTRIBUTE to the sport. All he did was perform a bunch of skydives. I generally don't give a damn if my DZO has or hasn't logged 30,000 jumps (by the way, to my knowledge Bill does NOT have his jumps counter-sogned and if so his logs are every bit as BS as your skygod's books). I am much more interested in the DZO's commitment to provide a safe environment then how many skydives he has made. Just because the man has done a ton of jumps (and nobody disputes that) does not mean he automatically deserves our respect in all things skydiving. Other than cheap tickets and providing an (unsafe) place to skydive for several decades, he has done nothing for this sport as far as I can tell. If I am selling the man short, correct me...explain to me how he has actually IMPROVED our sport in any meaningful way. *** Edit ********** Bill was only a regional director...and only that for about two or three years back in the mid-70's. As to the R&D board he was on, yes the board may have done something what did Bill do during that time period? It was my understanding that during that period of time, Bill wasn't very involved with the USPA even though he was a director (in fact I know he used to never even bother to send in his photo or bio for voting) which is why he only was a director for a couple years. By your definition anyone who has ever been a director has given a tremendous amount back to the sport. If you look back at that period, I remember Bill writing several letters complaining about the USPA, the insurance program, the group member program (a bit later), and basically attempting to be an obstructionist. -Sammy congratulations on re-defining chutzpah: someone with two years in the sport, less than 200 jumps, making pronouncements about the value of the contributions made by someone with 30,000+ jumps, thousands of hours of jump pilot time, and 40 years in the sport... and giving history lessons to someone who's been skydiving longer than you've been alive. LOL 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."

When a DZO takes the seats out of a plane in order to carry more jumpers, this is clear to every jumper boarding the plane, and they can make an informed desicion to accept the risk of flying in an airplane without a seat. When a DZO allows you to exit their aircraft, it is clear to every jumper that they are exiting the aircraft, and they can make an informed decision to accept the rick of making a skydive. When a DZO operates an aircraft in the US, it is implied that the aircraft has been maintained according the standard set by the FAA. If they choose to ignore that standard, and operate an aircraft maintained below the standard set by the FAA, this is not readily apparent to any jumpers outside of the DZ staff and maintenance personel. Jumpers jumping from such an aircraft are subjected to increased risk without their knowledge or consent. "Dream on." -- Steven Tyler 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."

Other than that, no, I can't think of any supporting facts. FYI: Bill Dause was on the USPA Board of Directors and served on the R&D Comm. That comm routinely studied new and existing equipment that came out. Results were published in Parachutist. I'd have to go pull mags to get the exacts dates, which I don't feel like doing right now. To say that Bill Dause has not contributed anything the the sum total of skydiving/parachuting knowledge would be incorrect. . +1 LOL I was being sarcastic, of course, because the two things I listed are by themselves significant contributions; I just couldn't think of any more at that moment -- including his service on the BOD. 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."

No, and who set him up on a pedestal of the 'Greatest Contributor to Skydiving?' Barry, is that you? 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."

Yes, now imagine the much higher chance of a plane having an issue when it is not "getting good MX" key word: "imagine." 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."

That is neither the conclusion I drew nor the belief I hold. But you will still defend Bill for not complying with the FAA? It makes perfect sense Not defending Bill for not complying. 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."

Then you understand how I feel about you and your opinion. And when I want the opinion of someone who has done nothing but take, and hasn't contributed anything worthwhile to this sport, I'll let you know. Thank you, Your Majesty. Please do tell me when you start talking to yourself. 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."

But that is the way your post came across. I was not the only one who came to that conclusion. Maybe you need to rethink what you wrote. Maybe. And maybe you ought to re-read what you think you read until you get it instead of jumping to conclusions based not on actual content but on bias, prejudice and pre-conceived notions. 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."

Please specify exactly what Bill has contributed to sport parachuting over the years. I keep seeing that statement, but no one ever seems to be able to come up with any supporting facts. You mean, other than providing, for about 40 years, places to jump that drew and draw thousands of people from all over the world to take advantage of airplanes that go up and down all day every day it's even marginally jumpable, at prices that can't be beat, and a real safety record (not FAA compliance record) per million jumps made that is equal to or better than any of the very few DZOs in the world whose operations can match his cumulative DZ jump totals? You mean, other than setting one of the most hard-core personal examples of jumping the world has every seen, provable through actual manifests and logbook entries and not just "guesstimated" by skygods who are too cool to log their jumps but who do not hestitate to claim tens of thousands of jumps? Other than that, no, I can't think of any supporting facts. 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."

Concur. That is neither the conclusion I drew nor the belief I hold. 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."

Didn't say that. Didn't do that. 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."

I hope the plane does not crash.... Me too. Of course what are the odds that a control cable will fail? Ask the people that were on the Twin Otter in San Diego a couple years back. Cool heads and a shit hot pilot are all that saved them from being a big grease spot, and that was on an airplane that was getting good maintenance. What are the odds the wings come off? Ask the fire crew of a C-130 from a couple years back. I'm still waiting to see someone actually defend Bill for putting lives in jeopardy to save a buck. I'll defend Bill -- and every other DZO. Every time a DZO removes the seats from airplanes so more jumpers can be stuffed in, s/he puts lives in jeopardy to save a buck. Every time a DZO lets someone jump from a plane, s/he puts lives in jeopardy to make a buck. What we do is really dangerous, our delusions and illusions thereabout notwithstanding, so it's pretty funny to hear all this whining about whether it's this dangeorus or that dangerous. DZOs put their own lives in jeopardy too -- every time they crank a plane, fill it with jumpers, and let them jump, whether or not they are physically on any of those planes. If they make a mistake -- and sometimes even when they don't -- their entire lives can be ruined in an instant. Running a drop zone is the very definition of risky business and DZOs should all be appreciated for their willingness to accept those risks, including Bill Dause, who has, in fact, and indisputably, contributed much to sport parachuting over many years -- much more than his detractors suggest, though probably less than his defenders claim. And JP, we all know exactly how you feel about Bill, but you really ought to consider dropping the polemics because you're not very good at it. How would the people on the San Diego Twin Otter have any more clue about "the odds that a control cable will fail" than anybody else who hasn't researched all the previous failures and compared them to the number of airplanes and flights and all the rest of the math and stats that go into that calculation? All they have is direct experience about how it feels when said cable fails. And, D'OH! you just shot your entire argument right between the eyes because you said the cables failed on an aircraft that was, in fact, "getting good maintenance." So, you know, if a plane getting good maintenance still has a cable failure, then, uh... why exactly is everybody acting like Bill was dripping acid on everybody's leg straps? Seems to me that the San Diego incident you cite is prima facie evidence that the FAA's cable replacement regimen is useless and the Bill did in fact not expose anyone to any additional risk even if he did violate the letter of the FAA's useless requirement. Your C-130 reference is even more hysterical: Not only do you repeat your "ask them what the odds are" silliness, you repeat it in terms of a completely different aircraft, with completely different issues, that was engaging in high-G maneuvers at extremely low altitudes in between mountains -- not exactly the kind of operations performed by jump planes or in any way relevant to this discussion. You may as well wonder about the odds that the wheels are going to come off that poorly maintained -- or well-maintained-- tractor trailer next to you on the 99 freeway as you drive to Lodi so your ass can jump 10 times for 100 bucks... 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."

There is - it includes injury and/or death. +! 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."

Agreed. That's a good thing to know. But knowing why is even better. What about if you land 7 times as fast? How hard will the impact be? To answer this question, you need to know which formula to use. And the answer is, the impact will be 49 times as hard. Because kinetic energy is proportional to the speed squared (E=0.5*m*v^2). True, but you can use the force equation to get there too. Of course, acceleration and speed are linked, but they're not the same. They represent two different physical properties, measured using two different units. Would you say that the area of a circle is the same as its diameter? Of course not, even if they're obviously linked. They are indeed linked, and in both cases, linked closely enough that the average person can use them interchangeably and arrive at the same understanding of space, time and IMPACT... even if in so doing it aggravates "real" physicists. Thanks. Actually, English is my fourth language, behind French, Italian and German (and before Japanese

Yours too... I'm just curious. Based on that formula, can you explain why the impact is four times harder when speed is doubled? F = m * a God. F = m * a Acceleration is not speed. That's physics 101. Actually, it's KE = 0.5 * m * v^2, but you're talking flying apples and splattered oranges. That's exactly what I wrote (writing conventions aside). Thank you. Okay, that's what I thought... Or to say it in English: you are unable to explain why you hit four times as hard. So I'll explain it to you. Kinetic energy is the energy you have when you move. When you don't move, your kinetic energy is 0. So, when an object hits the ground, its kinetic energy drops suddenly to 0. That is because the kinetic energy it contained was liberated in the form of a sudden strong pressure on the object, a crater in the ground, some heat, some noise and maybe some broken bones. Now, you're right about one thing: when the speed is doubled, the impact is four times harder. But obviously you don't really understand why. Why is the impact four times harder? Because in the equation: E = 0.5 * m * v^2 v is squared. So, when v is 2 times larger, E is 4 times larger. When v is 3 times larger, E is 9 times larger, etc... Furthermore, there's a fundamental thing you don't seem to get: F = m*a describes a force, and E = 0.5*m*v^2 describes an enregy. Force and energy are two different things. Once again, that's physics 101. Wow, now that is real physics... Seriously, you should take a refresher course in physics, because you seem to lack the basics. And please stop trying to teach it to others. You're really not helping them. All your egghead blah-blah aside, the fundamental thing I DO get is: If you land twice as fast, you hit four times as hard. And here's a hint for you: Acceleration is in fact sorta about speed and sorta not because, you know, acceleration is the rate of change of speed as a function of time. That's Physics 101 too. Seriously, you should take a refresher course in English reading comprehension because you seem to lack the basics.* * Just kidding about this last point; respect to you for your English skills; I'd be a very happy guy if I could read, write or speak any second language 1/10th as well as you do English. 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."

No matter what the subject is, skydiving seems to really stress you out, and you don't seem to enjoy any of it, so why don't you just sell your gear and go bowling? 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."

It's not angle of attack you're talking about in your example; it's angle of impact. F = m * a can be a little tricky, because the "a" is for acceleration, which is sorta like speed, but sorta not. The "a" means how fast your speed changes, or, in other words, how fast you come to a stop. In the scenario you describe, the force of the swooper landing is distributed over more time so injuries may be less catastrophic, whereas the force of the big canopy landing is distributed over less time, so the injuries will probably be more catastrophic. And as Bill outlined in the scenarios he described, certain body parts can come to a more sudden stop than the rest of you, with the resulting catastrophic injuries he described. That's why it's important to slow down your landing speed as much as you can, which is why we land into the wind -- and why we should remember that we can turn in a flare and flare in a turn; if we ever do find ourselves heading downwind, it gives us a fighting chance to get into the wind enough to bleed off some of that extra speed so that we don't end up bleeding (as much) without making everything worse. 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."

Yours too... I'm just curious. Based on that formula, can you explain why the impact is four times harder when speed is doubled? F = m * a God. F = m * a Actually, it's KE = 0.5 * m * v^2, but you're talking flying apples and splattered oranges. Kinetic energy is a calculation of potential force before a body in motion "comes to rest." Force is a calculation of how hard a body in motion hits when it does come to rest. Or to say it again in English: If you land twice as fast, you hit four times as hard. 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."

+1 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."