robinheid

Right on, Bill. As the late great Al Frisby once said to a 200-pound-plus guy who wanted him to install an AAD on a rig with a 100sf-range reserve: "Why the f*** are you wasting your money on a f****** AAD? If you're unconscious or incapacitated, the f****** landing's gonna f****** kill you anyway." 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 know someone who was unable to deploy his main and went unstable when reaching for his reserve handle. He decided it would be better to get stable and let his AAD fire in order to ensure a clean deployment, than to pull it himself while unstable. Yeah, that's right - he wasn't panicked or incapacitated by fear - he made a conscious, reasoned decision to sit there on his belly staring at the ground rushing up until his AAD fired. He defended his decision afterwards, too. He really thought it was the best course of action he could have taken. As far as I know he never did change his mind. Exhibits A and B for the affirmative: AADs interfere with natural selection. 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."

They interfere with natural selection. 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."

Keep in mind that these incidents are in no way related to the calender year. There is no reset button on 12/31 that wipes the slate clean, and gives some sort of 'fresh start'. Grouping them together by year is really just a way to catagorize them. . But they may be related to the season. A lot of uncurrent jumpers start jumping again right around now. My goodness, I'm agreeing with my good unmet friend Professor Kallend! Add to that a key factor I've noticed over the 30+ years I've been doing this: Not only are people generally less current than usual in the March-April time frame, they also forget about the consequences of density altitude changes brought about by warmer temperatures. Even those who remain generally current during the winter months often make density altitude-related errors by turning too low, flaring too late, etc. So in addition to all of the other jibber-jabber about giving yourself extra margin until your currency catches up after the winter, there is much to be said for reviewing density altitude charts and getting reacquainted with how hotter air affects the way your canopy flies - and then adjust accordingly. 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."

For those of you havin' trouble reading the OP's disseration, I've edited the formatting (but didn't change the content). I couldn't stand to read it before, either... see skymama1... this is why we use PROPER SENTENCES and ACTUAL PARAGRAPHS - to break up the text into technically understandable and visually digestible pieces! Wasn't sure to post in women's forum or here in safety; move if you wish, but I'm speaking as a woman/mother, but realize every child generally has (at least) 2 parents and fathers also can respond as it's relevant to all. I am interested to know how you feel about taking on an added risk that you would not otherwise be taking in your day to day life, with regard to your children? I guess some of it is balancing risk versus benefit in general, it just adds a much heavier weight to the risk however minimal when there are children involved in my mind, which is why I spent a few months thinking/reading before scheduling my first couple courses/jumps. I still have some mixed feelings but feel fairly confident in that 1) I know that I am first and foremost responsible for my safety, shit happens BUT most mistakes would be on me, and that I need to err on the side of caution. (That is not any sort of general statement that most skydivers don't- I wouldn't know yet lol- nor that fatalities are always caused by recklessness- simply that anyone can make a mistake, but that I accept responsibility for taking advantage of all safety days and learning to check my gear, staying current, things like that to minimize risks. The other factor I have thought of is statistics- that things like riding in or driving a car or motorcycle are similar in risk, that it is pretty darn unlikely that I am going to die or be severely injured, that realistically I did take the responsibility of writing a will and estate plan and power of attorney and such for accident or death in any case (at the time, I was prepping for childbirth not skydiving- lol- just thought that having a child enter the world was reason enough to have those documents squared away, especially being unmarried). BUT sometimes my mind goes back to the fact that no matter how miniscule that risk might be, or how comparable to risks I might not even think twice about taking, it is STILL an added risk, however small, that I may be unable to work and support a family due to injury, or die (which I think would scare any mother, or father, but I guess being single and knowing my son's father is not fit to parent him right now is an even bigger factor-- although on the other hand, if someone were married, they may not just have worries about their child(ren) but also about leaving their wife or husband behind. just curious if others considered and weighed these factors, some perspective etc. Like I said it's not black and white in my head but I have been thinking on it awhile and I guess my approach is that I need to be realistic and take certain steps for the what-ifs - but also feel safe enough that I am making a choice I can live with and benefit from, and so far the information and intuition I have gleaned makes me feel mainly confident in the choice to involve myself in the sport. But again, I wonder how other parents consider these issues, and I do understand that "risk" is very relative and can be perceived very differently by different people, or the same people at different times or circumstances.. Anyways, blue skies. (and disclaimer, yes I do now realize my username is similar to a mod's (skymama), and I don't want any more drama lol but fyi to those who are wondering, I do indeed realize it and have requested a change if the mods can or desire to grant it. either way I am just here to learn and meet people and become the safest skydiver I can and enjoy every minute of it. so yeah, hopefully, this can be an on topic relevant thread if others have thought about these issues which I imagine anyone who is a parent has- then maybe most sane parents don't skydive LOL i don't know much about what "normal" "sane" human beings do... just kidding, kinda, but i guess i sorta do things my own way, but i have my reasons... ) ETA: I'd also be interested to hear if there are families/parents who bring their kiddos along to family-friendly DZs and how that works out (I suppose it depends on the individual DZ and ages).. the one I plan to jump at this spring is owned by a family with three young kiddos near my son's age range, so I think it will be a good fit. they have a playground and stuff, and I hope to have my kiddo and extended family/friends come out at times so he can play and hang out. other days I'll have my son with his grandma at my apt or her house and I'll go out to the DZ by myself or with my brother (he's expressed an interest in diving, but either way if he backs out I'm still making him come and watch :) since I want to get my license (I'm pretty motivated to get this license this season, so I figure as a parent, I know it's hard for me sometimes to be fully in learning/focusing mode if I feel I am in parenting-mode. so if I want to go out and really get serious about getting the levels done and learning other things around the DZ, it will probably be easier to have family watch the kiddo. but I do hope to incorporate him and family/friends into the sport and create a fun atmosphere, especially since I know there are other families there and there are times when you aren't jumping/packing/in class when you'd be waiting around, eating, etc. when I could spend time with family (and hopefully convince the rest of them to come up and jump sooner or later haha- anyone else converted their family?) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gearing up for a sky adventure- first jump course/tandem on Easter and ground school/2nd jump AFF weather permitting on the 9th... can't wait! (This post was edited by skymama1 on Mar 24, 2010, 2:02 AM) 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 was an obvious failure to communicate. The writer was so pre-disposed to the idea that skydivers only die by "crashing" that there was no regard to the possibility that there may have been a medical reason for the fatality prior to landing. Poorly reported but at least they got it that Jim was an important player. Too bad they left out how much he will be missed. jon Hi Jon, I think everything is poorly reported. In days gone by I was in quite a few articles that family members keep in a scrapbook. Last Christmas I was looking at them and 100% of them shared the same thing, THEY WERE ALL WRONGLY REPORTED! Too bad the media doesn't have ethics monitoring like Attorneys, they'd all get dis-mediatized. Mike the really REALLY scary part is: If they can so badly screw up a simple, straightforward, unlayered story about a parachuting fatality, imagine how much they're screwing up the stories about health care, afghanistan and the congo. 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."

As Jerry and Howard mentioned, he stopped jumping after getting seriously hurt. But as I recall the injury was from a parachute tow accident. A truck was towing a ram-air with Dan under it. The parachute dived for the ground and he hammered in. I think they did not have a quick release at the jumper end of the cable. He also did some of the early slope soaring, but I don't think he got hurt doing that. . Dan quit jumping in May of 1982 (except for the 1990s jumps Jan mentioned) after he was injured in a BOAT-towing-ram-air parachute accident. He hit the beach and broke. This was when Para-Flite was actively promoting a towed ram-air system to train students in canopy control. The problem was if you put too much tension on the tow line, the canopy "locked out" and dove into the ground like a kite without a tail in a high wind. Dan broke his back in several places, plus tore up one or both feet. I remember this well because three weeks after Dan crashed, I suffered almost identical injuries (broken back, broken foot, shattered ankle) doing the same thing (in my case, it was a car towing the canopy). I don't know if Dan had a quick release or not but I didn't, and after we two high-profile jumpers hammered in almost identically, Para-Flite suspended its program, then deep-sixed it. It had tried to fix the lockout problem with a thing called a "tensiometer" that gauged tension and when it got too much, a "watcher" would tell the driver to stop. Unfortunately, the window between "OK" and "critical" was so small that the canopy would go critical and lock out before the watcher could tell the driver to stop. It was a great idea for training students; too bad physics got in the way! Anyway, while I was laying in the hospital, I called Dan (we new each other from USPA stuff), and when he asked how I was, I told him I was laying in a hospital wth a broken back and two broken legs. "I don't think that's very funny," Dan said, annoyed. "Neither do I," I replied. "It hurts like hell." Then we had a good laugh about our mutual injuries, and an interesting conversation about our respective crashes and the efficacy of the Para-Flite system. Dan is truly one of the giants of sport parachuting. I'm glad to hear he made a few more jumps before retiring for good, and it's great to see him still making a big carbon footprint around the world. 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."

Simply because they already have taken a stance, and a retraction at this point could be construed as endorsement. Good thing you weren't around to make that argument when USPA "retracted" its stance on not jumping squares with less than 100 jumps after Roger Nelson rubbed the BOD's noses in how stupid that was by showing how well things went when first-jump students used squares. And please tell me who exactly would see as an endorsement a long-overdue move by USPA to... simply conform with the rest of the action sport/risk activity world - or even the multiple countries around the world whose parachuting associations do not have an age limit? Try again. 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 you go mixing and matching again. When USPA took over the tandem certification program, it put itself directly into the line of liability fire. D'OH! That was a good decision, wasn't it? Eliminating an age requirement removes USPA from being a party to anything legally related thereto. D'OH! And if a tandem manufacturer doesn't want to go along with no age requirement, then FINE; it's a PRIVATE BUSINESS making a choice about the level of legal risk with which it feels comfortable. Finally, congrats on demolishing the tandem straw man. The point of this thread is USPA's age restrictions, not the tandem safety record. So let's get back on task, JP: please explain why USPA can't do what sporting associations related to scuba, car racing, skiing, snowboarding, skateboarding, motocross and numerous other risk sports do and just keep its pie hole shut about age? 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 was told by several other jumpers in the area that heard the conversation "not to worry about it" because the guy can be a skygod deuchebag. I had just, never came across such an obvious example. He was not "rude", sure, I said and meant it. It was just misplaced "advice". I kinda want to meet the guy, formally I mean. I was told he is #4,5? in the world swooping. I would like to fly with him someday. and feel bad I did not confront him at the time. I was just taken aback by, well, arrogant ignorance. best way to handle an arrogant twatmuppet when he asks you how many jumps you have is to tell him you don't know because you quit logging years ago. then he has no muppet on which to hang his twat. 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."

QuoteWhat is the legal exposure for the USPA as a club, for members w.r.t. insurance permiums and for tandem rig makers who I think have their own limits? My understanding is that the age limit is there because until someone reaches the age of majority the waiver cannot be signed with informed consent. So if they get hurt they can sue you later & the waiver carries no weight. Quote It is true that when individuals turn 18 (or 19 in a couple of states) they can "renounce" any contracts signed as a minor, so that is indeed an issue. However, this exact same issue applies to _all_ sports, to include motocross, scuba, skateboarding, skiing, etc., etc., yet the governing organizations of all of these sports are completely silent on whether or not minors can participate; it is left solely and completely to the individual business to determine the level of legal risk with which it feels comfortable. USPA stands alone in continuing to interfere in the business decisions of group member drop zones and individual members to decide the age at which customers can participate. See the last issue of SKYDIVING Magazine for a detailed look at this issue and the manner in which USPA stunts the growth of the sport by making it essentially impossible for young people to participate. 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."

Blue Sky, Black Death... ...oh wait, was that too much information too? Robin, an old guy named Will Rogers once said "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging". Time to put the shovel down. Sparky Good idea, Michael. You can always pick it up again later. 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 indeed! Jerry is late because after he retired as a US Navy SEAL, he went to work in Iraq as a security contractor for Blackwater, where he was the Baghdad station chief for a while. Then he went to work for another company and while he was escorting two VIPs came under fire and took a round in the neck. He got both of his VIPs to safety before bleeding out. The great part... 1) Jerry and Pat Works were among the pioneering sit flyers back in the early 1990s and competed in several events that really set the stage for the development of freeflying. 2) Jerry was also a CRW ace and participated in several of the world formation records (I think his biggest was the 85-way), and was a member of Perris Valley's Ghost Riders 4-way CReW team. 3) Jerry was also an AFF and tandem instructor and a videographer, and extremely proficient with an outstanding "bedside" manner with his students; he was a master at making his charges feel comfortable, confident and capable. 4) He was one seriously bad-ass warrior but also an incredibly gentle and loving father, a deadly practical joker and the kind of guy who could light up a room with his grin and, to steal a description of the also late-great Jimmy Hall, Jerry would give you the shirt off your back just to see you smile... and if the s--- hit the fan, there was no better guy to have at your side. 5) Other stories about Jerry... catch me at the bonfire sometime. Long story short: If Leo had done his tandem with Jerry, the kid would probably have 2000 jumps by now. 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."

Blue Sky, Black Death... ...oh wait, was that too much information too? 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, I could have done without that visual. I'm not sure I follow your "logic" here, so let me see if I have this straight: An experienced skydiver invites his ex-girlfriend to the DZ so he can show her how much guts he has, then a Navy SEAL tastes the dead dude's brain matter - and from that you conclude that the messenger is the one who needs help? Did I get that right? 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."

Sorry, guess I shouldn't have mentioned that part about the Bombshelter... Still, I was pretty discreet -- I didn't include the part where the late great Jerry McCauley walked up to the body from the landing area and, holding his canopy in one hand, stuck a finger from his other hand into some exposed brains, then licked his finger clean and said something like: "Yep, tastes like Harley all right." 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."

As the link to the earlier thread says, Leo did a post-Titanic-filming, pre-Titanic-release jump at Perris with tandem master Harley Powell, where they had a "routine" partial malfunction and a "routine" reserve ride. The Enquirer story came out some months later (post-Titanic-release when Leo was way more famous) and was titled something like "Leo Survives Skydiving Death Plunge!" and then talked breathlessly about his tandem jump and malfunction. The story carried a stock tandem photo and it was (and may still be) framed and hung on the wall in Perris Valley's Bomshelter Bar & Grill. What's ironic is that had the Enquirer done some basic research, its headline could've been far more compelling: "Leo Survives Skydiving Death Plunge with Suicidal Instructor!" Because sometime between the time of the jump and the Enquirer story, Harley Powell committed suicide on Mother's Day by inviting his ex-girlfriend to the DZ to "see something," then jumped out of the Otter saying to people still in the plane: "There's a note in the van." Then he proceeded to bounce right next to the runway across from the student area. So it could have been a far more stupid and sensational story, but fortunately the Enquirer reporters on the story were apparently not the ones who did such great research on the OJ and John Edwards cases. 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."

News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody but YOU has suggested it. Lepka 61 If you make it the SOP to provide a cut and level off, then all you have to rely on is the highly trained, highly experienced commercial turbine pilot in the front seat. All he has to do is pull a lever back, push the yoke forward and wait. Lepka 67 I've clearly stated several times that I am all for jumper training and personal responsibility. However, I cannot understand the resistance to the idea that making a level pass the SOP. It eliminates the need to rely on that training, and subtracts the possibility of a tailstrike (aside from outragously bad behavoir). Jacketsdb23 81 USPA would be smart to take a position that says leveling off the plane and reducing power is the proper configuration for exiting the aircraft. Lepka 94 The trouble is that we are running out of 'safety nets' for people who shouldn't be skydiving. Today it's the climbing low pass. Let's get rid of that, and then we won't have a fatality or paralyzed jumper every couple of years. That's all just pie-in-the-sky talk. What we actually have to deal with now are the jumpers currently in AC across the country, and you just can't trust every single one of them to do the right thing, so we have to pull the power and push the nose over. For now. Kallend 111 Flying straight and level on jump run is a better procedure. It should be standard operating procedure. Kallend – USPA Safety Ad Poll thread 35 The pilot in command has responsibility for the aircraft and all its occupants, not just for the person doing a H&P. A tail strike can take out the aircraft. The pilot should configure the A/C to minimize the possibilty of a tail strike. Show us the proposal before the BOD to put in in the BSR and you will convince us. Otherwise you are just plain WRONG. 1) diablopilot wrote: "News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody but YOU has suggested it." Each one of the above comments does, in fact, suggest that a "no climbing exits" rule be made because, logically speaking, how exactly do you enforce it if it's not a rule, Professor Kallend? Moreover, the term "SOP" usually is equivalent to a rule, and in this case, most of the "suggestions" were that "no climbing exits" be adopted as SOP industrywide. 2) There you go again, Professor, making stuff up.... The comment to which I responded declared only that no one suggested that "no climbing exits" be made a rule; no claim has been made by anyone except you that the word suggestion in this context is defined as a "proposal before the BOD to put it in the BSR." 3) Now, lest the followers of this thread forget where it all started, Paul wrote thusly: I worry that if this had been published by USPA early enough, the plaintiff's lawyers in the Lodi tail strike case could have argued that the national organization was taking the position that the pilot should be found at fault in that accident. Personally, I believe that if I informed the pilot that I wanted to exit on the climbing low pass, a climbing aircraft is "properly configured" per the agreement between the pilot and myself. I believe that it is then completely up to me to conduct the jump so as not to jeopardize the aircraft and the other jumpers. Should I fail to do that, it in no way reflects on the pilot; he did exactly what he was supposed to do. I invite discussion regarding this ad, and I also invite USPA members to express their feelings, whether for or against the ad, to their USPA BOD members so that they can get a fair reading of the sentiments of the membership. And so there has been been a spirited, thoughtful and insightful discussion that has, on balance, remained remarkably civil as well. Paul's objective - to get this issue out of USPA's back rooms and into the light of open debate so that "USPA BOD members can get a fair reading of the sentiments of the membership" - has been achieved. So, good on everybody and I hope USPA will take heed. And with that, I hereby retire from this thread. 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."

News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody but YOU has suggested it. Lepka 61 If you make it the SOP to provide a cut and level off, then all you have to rely on is the highly trained, highly experienced commercial turbine pilot in the front seat. All he has to do is pull a lever back, push the yoke forward and wait. Lepka 67 I've clearly stated several times that I am all for jumper training and personal responsibility. However, I cannot understand the resistance to the idea that making a level pass the SOP. It eliminates the need to rely on that training, and subtracts the possibility of a tailstrike (aside from outragously bad behavoir). Jacketsdb23 81 USPA would be smart to take a position that says leveling off the plane and reducing power is the proper configuration for exiting the aircraft. Lepka 94 The trouble is that we are running out of 'safety nets' for people who shouldn't be skydiving. Today it's the climbing low pass. Let's get rid of that, and then we won't have a fatality or paralyzed jumper every couple of years. That's all just pie-in-the-sky talk. What we actually have to deal with now are the jumpers currently in AC across the country, and you just can't trust every single one of them to do the right thing, so we have to pull the power and push the nose over. For now. Kallend 111 Flying straight and level on jump run is a better procedure. It should be standard operating procedure. Kallend – USPA Safety Ad Poll thread 35 The pilot in command has responsibility for the aircraft and all its occupants, not just for the person doing a H&P. A tail strike can take out the aircraft. The pilot should configure the A/C to minimize the possibilty of a tail strike. 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."

Hook turns in the pattern aren't that big of a deal, most people get away with them without injury. Low pull contests aren't that big of a deal, most people got away with them without any problem. Blast handles and Novas didn't kill that many people - what's the big deal? "Hook turns" aren't regulated by central diktat but on a DZ-by-DZ basis, so your comparison is invalid. Minimum pack opening altitudes were created in response not to low pull "contests" per se but because too many people were routinely opening too low to use their emergency procedures - and as I recall, this took place after 1976, when we had a then-record 55 fatalities in one year. So there was from a statistical analysis standpoint a valid reason to impose these rules. There is not a statistically analogous justification for imposing rules on climbing-pass exits. Novas were not banned by centralized diktat. The law of supply and demand solved the "Nova problem." Funny you should mention blast handles because USPA's ban of blast handles is a perfect example of that against which I'm arguing in this thread: Imposing a "solution" on a "problem" that doesn't exist. As I recall, there were a couple of fatalities and a few near-misses over a multi-year period that were not due to the blast handle per se but to improper rigging thereof. But rather than doing a statistical analysis, USPA just imposed a diktat that no one could jump with blast handles any more. So I will say again: Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient. 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."

Spot on, Professor, so now please apply this same statistical analysis to climbing-pass fatalities during the turbine era and I betcha a case of beer your statistical analysis will concur with my intuitive analysis: Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient. 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."

And I wasn't going to draw you back in but you mentioned me by name so I had to... How experienced do you have to be to remind someone to not hit the tail when they go out on a climbing pass? This is part of my main objection with the "rulemaking" proposed in this thread: * It's not that big a deal (as Professor Kallend's reminder emphasizes) * It can be handled informally. Your question is flawed because the "possibility" of a tail strike exists with "raised tail" exits too so let me rephrase your question: If a tailstrike is more likely on a climbing pass and raising the tail would reduce that risk, isn't the prudent move just to raise the tail? The answer is "yes" when this small element of a drop zone operation is viewed from climbing-pass altitude, but "not necessarily" when looked at from 50,000 feet. Scroll through this thread and you'll multiple posts from people other than myself which detail why in big-picture terms "not necessarily" is the correct answer. As you correctly point out, let supply and demand work instead of using centralized diktats to force all businesses to do what may or may not be in their best interests. So I will say again: Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient. 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 you go again, making stuff up... Ahem - I've posted the numbers, which clearly support my claim and refute yours. I hope you do your research more carefully when you are a "court certified expert" Sigh... What you made up was not the fatality numbers but your comparison between what you called today's wimpy jumpers and the supermen of yesteryear. I made no such reference or distinction, nor did I use either term - you did. So I will say again: The fatality numbers you reference support my principal thread thesis (not the thesis you created for me out of thin air): Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders such as the jingle I proposed are more than sufficient. LOOK before you leave the door, SEE the tail, don't ignore. LOOK before you leave the door, DON'T hit the tail! 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 you go again, making stuff up... To repeat the thesis you misrepresent: in addition to the continuing mostly above-average-in-courage-capability-alertness-and-awareness people who start jumping (i.e., "supermen"), our system actively encourages instead of discourages the continued participation of that fraction of people who want to jump but shouldn't be jumping -- so imagine how much lower the fatality rate could go if we started saying "no" a little more often at the outset? But thanks for the reminder, Professor Kallend; it supports my principal thesis throughout this thread, which is: Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders such as the jingle I proposed are more than sufficient. LOOK before you leave the door, SEE the tail, don't ignore. LOOK before you leave the door, DON'T hit the tail! 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."

Maybe a better way than making safety nets for people who shouldn't be skydiving is to, uhhhh, not let them skydive? There's been criticism on this thread about drop zone owners putting the dollar ahead of safety by doing climbing passes, but it seems to me that the larger problem of putting safety ahead of the dollar is coddling and making "safety nets" for people who shouldn't be skydiving instead of, once again, taking the simplest - and safest route by telling them point-blank that they shouldn't be skydiving. This is perhaps the most bizarre and pervasive disconnect in sport parachuting today; it is a fact that to successfully skydive you need to be a little braver, a little more physically capable, a little more alert and aware than the average bear - and yet we support a governing association that creates and perpetuates a training system designed to get even far-below-average bears to shell out thousands so that they can skydive. And that is, in fact, the genesis of AFF, which was founded on Ken Coleman's premise that if you had an instructor on each side of the student, then "anybody can make a skydive." Well, maybe "anybody" can indeed make a skydive under constant, hand-holding supervision at all times, but what happens after we quit holding their hands? A sport in need of "safety nets" to extend the hand-holding to protect people... who... shouldn't... be... skydiving... in... the... first... place. So now it's being proposed that our liberty be further curtailed (as DZOs and individual jumpers) to provide "safety nets" for these people who shouldn't be skydiving in the first place - along with accompanying bureaucracy and the economic brakes and additional liability exposure it imposes on DZs. The logical extension of this "safety net" mentality, however, is the ultimate banning of sport parachuting by government because it's too dangerous to provide a "safety net" for everyone who wants to do it -- because, no matter how safe we make the gear and the operations, people can still die or get hurt doing it, so not only do we need to ban climbing passes, but aircraft exits of all kinds. You know, zero exits, zero skydiving fatalities. (And if you think I'm exaggerating about that mentality, check out the Craighead brothers' report on NPS bear management in Yellowstone. The NPS actively tried to kill off the bears it was supposed to protect because the bears were attacking people and the bureaucratic mentality was: Zero bears, zero bear maulings.) + 1 - 10 "For now" reminds me of all those "temporary tax increases" politicians impose "for now" - to get past a supposedly transitory problem, but which then get extended, over and over again into perpetuity. Finally, "trust(ing) every single one of them to do the right thing" on exit is a bogus premise: We don't need to "trust" them; we need to remind them. And it really isn't that hard. My 3-year-old knows that she must stop before she crosses a street and look both ways to make sure it's safe. She even knows a little video jingle by heart: STOP before you cross the street. LOOK before you move your feet. STOP before you cross the street. LOOK left and right! But just because she knows the jingle doesn't mean we don't remind her what she's supposed to do when she gets to a street. So it seems to me that instead of imposing "safety nets" and deeper bureaucracy and more liability exposure on sport parachuting, we should just remind the 3-year-olds to do the aerial equivalent of looking both ways before they cross the street: LOOK before you leave the door. SEE the tail, don't ignore. LOOK before you leave the door. DON'T hit the tail! Seriously, everyone on this thread arguing for a climbing pass ban is basically accepting - and trying to put bandaids on - a system that "passes" people through AFF training who can't think at a 3-year-old level. So it seems to me that we need to think less about power settings and pitch angles and more about who we're letting on the airplanes. 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."