sfzombie13

except that is not an opinion, it's a fact. if, and it is a huge if because i think my math is wrong, the numbers show that one country can lower fatalities by instituting a control and the us does not even attempt to look at that control because "we're adults" and we "don't want a nanny state", then not only do they not care about safety, or more precisely lowering fatalities, but we deserve every last one that could have been prevented. my opinion is that there will always be fatalities and more regulation would do nothing. we need less opinions and more facts. you may not be able to compare them directly, but since the uspa has it broken down to fatalities per 100k jumps, we can extrapolate the 2 per 86.5k to 2.3 per 100k approximately. i did the math for the 2 for 86.5 and it worked out to .0023, and i think i need to make it say .23 for a percentage (but i forgot and am too lazy to look it up) which is very close to the uspa rate of .28, but i don't have the numbers to check. if it is that close then it means we don't need to change anything since their rules had the same effect as our none.

check my math again please. i get 0.0023% in netherlands and 0.23 from uspa site. i didn't have the numbers to do the math from uspa, that's why i just took theirs

sure you can compare them. 86500 jumps and 2 fatalities is 0.0023%. sure looks like someone is doing something right. uspa reports that the us had 0.26% fatality to jump ratio in 2021. i may not be a statistician, but looking at how many zeroes are in front of the dutch rate, i would say they are safer overall, per 100k jumps at least. how many tandem fatalities total did they have? if i hear none, then they absolutely are doing something safer than us. maybe that "nanny state" saves lives, and i am all for that, no matter how much i hate being told what i can and cannot do.

only one question remains. how many fatalities do the dutch have under canopy? if it is none, then it is high time the uspa does something similar. if they refuse, they are not a safety organization. no other conclusion can be made. i have my ideas on what the answer to the question is, as well as the rest.

i doubt that's by choice, probably more like they don't like losing aircraft for testing the pack jobs. i'm sure they would require them to test if there was a way to do it. could they lose one seat on a plane and still land it?

sure, that's gonna stop the person. maybe accurate information such as this would rather than saying "you're gonna die" because they don't have experience doing it. my thought is that it's gonna happen so we may as well make sure they know what they need to know to survive. i would much rather read about someone who got shot than someone who jumped from an airplane and died. we're getting way too many of those for some reason. speaking of things going wrong, i saw a video once of a jump from a cessna with a door that opened like that that fell off in flight. something else to consider since a pilot losing the door of their plane can be dangerous and expensive. it could crash the plane if it hit the right spot.

no, that statement stands by itself, no explanation needed. it's not right, but it's not wrong. i married a stripper once.

another good reason for the new account

where could one go to find all of this fatality information in a searchable form? i'd love to have a chance at figuring out some trends. also, i forgot to mention wind drift indicators. either that or someone on the ground with smoke of some flags so you can setup the landing properly. also, just thought that a ground crew with a vehicle in case of emergency would be a great idea. we always had an ambulance at the dz for airborne ops. that may be overkill for one jumper, but a car for sure, just in case. edit: and start at the dz to set the altimeter to zero.

don't forget to file the notam, and do lots of practice on the exit on the ground. also, make sure you have permission to land rather than just dropping in.

i'm not sure i agree with this or not, but i don't have enough information on it to make a call. i wouldn't think that the last several fatalities have occurred at places where these things were lacking, but i don't know and don't want to make judgements. i don't think i've seen any questionable things proposed around a dropzone since the late '90s, different world back then. if uspa instituted an endorsement system it would fix it in a very short time. it could be proposed, take comments and suggestions, and implemented by the end of the year 2023. everyone would have a chance at their say, and anyone could be grandfathered in for any endorsement they needed. anyone wanting one from then on would have to pass the test from the local s&ta. in a very short time we would show any new jumpers that we are serious about safety and it would become the norm. maybe it wouldn't stop all the fatalities but i am willing to bet it would stop some. if it stops one it's worth it in my opinion.

that's the easy part, uspa dropzones can make the jumper who doesn't have the required endorsement to get it or not jump, much the same as they do with an aad now.

sure have been a lot of tandem fatalities lately, and from what i recall, most are due to low turns. it isn't hard to implement an endorsement to licenses, and this would include wing loading limits, as well as allow high performance canopies. it wouldn't be hard to enforce since we already have to show our paperwork when jumping, it would be just one more item to check. this would be the best solution for the issue with the least amount of disruption. as for your last sentence, it's more than just a way to dismiss it, it is arguably irresponsible and borderline negligent to just do nothing about the increasing death toll from low turns.

it makes more sense now. the "everything possible" left out a very important part. the part about "without pissing a lot of folks off". it is not that hard to add an endorsement to a license, in fact i thought that was the way at least one other country did it. it may take a bit to come up with the qualifications and then to train and add more examiners, but it could just be as simple as tasking s&ta's with qualifying them. in fact, i know i could come up with the system in a weekend of screwing around, then put it up for folks to look at and discuss. if uspa were so inclined, they could have it done and in place by safety day. but i would hate for it to interfere with competitions, after all, this is possibly saving lives not business.

so? do they care about safety or the appearance of safety? from some of the shit i've read about lately, including the 40k foot tandem disaster i will refrain from voicing my opinion. i know what it sounds like though.

thanx for that tip about the rubber cement. i have a tube of that lying around and have yet to try the ones i made. i'll take it with me when i do in case i have any come apart.

1/4" od natural latex surgical tubing on amazon. i paid $13 for 33 ft, but i saw some in a 120' length for $25.

120' of 1/4" natural latex surgical tubing for $25 plus shipping on amazon. around $1 for a set of 12.

you're welcome. i got one in the freezer now to see if they lose elasticity when they get cold. i read about that on another thread. edit: here's a pdf. my phone doesn't open word docs. tim-stows.pdf

i didn't look at the word document and my way looks easier. i took some pictures and made my own guide. i didn't glue anything and haven't tested them yet. if anyone sees anything potentially dangerous let me know please. i'm calling them tim stows. tim-stow-instructions.docx

i made a dozen last night. took almost an hour and a half to figure out how to make the first one, then 11 in half an hour. the trick is to use the hemos to hold the outside edge of the tube that isn't folded back and press it inside the hole and hold it while wrapping it with the fold. if you don't let them open enough it starts to pull the tube out. two sets of hemos would be easier than one and the needle nosed pliers i was using. i hope to get down and change them out and test them to see if they work today.

i think i heard that before, just one of those things that was a long time ago and isn't talked about much. thanx for the clarification.

i thought riggers flat packed. i wasn't aware that it was a needed skill for riggers.

if they stop stretching after the first time, wrap them three times instead of two. or two times instead of one. if they continue to stretch, THEN we're fucked.

may as well lock this one now, nothing meaningful is coming from it any longer. when i hear that sl/iad training is not as safe and that jumping once a month shouldn't be allowed it's a shit show and full of anecdotal crap. took me over 22 years to get my a and not once was i not as safe as anyone else in the sky. i went to other dzs and jumped as a student, several times. as a student that one time when a b licensed jumper was on the wrong landing pattern and turned base directly toward me without seeing me, it was me that was watching and took evasive action to save his sorry ass from hitting me, not the licensed jumper avoiding the student or doing a correct pattern. and he was a current jumper who jumped several times a weekend. and by having 63 jumps to get my a, i was not only an expert at hop and pops but great at canopy work, all the way until i downsized to a 1:1 wl main. maybe next season i'll put it back on and learn how to work it as well as i can work my 218.