pkasdorf

OK, with 124 votes and an 82% vs 18% result that has been relatively steady during these two weeks (it is very unlikely that there can be a significant change of the trend in the future) and with many and very valuable thoughts and opinions expressed I think that the time for conclusions has arrived. + It is almost unanimous that risky behavior and/or disdain for safety is a concern + One can see that when defining well known as somebody who has been warned and taught about his behavior, an overwhelming majority favors the least bad solution -grounding- if he/she doesn't correct his/her attitude Many thanks for participating in this poll and I hope there are no hard feelings left because of the sometimes very heated debate HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

Just to put this poll on top again so as to stimulate more votes and thoughts! HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

Exactly, that is the point, thank you! I thought that the title of the poll was specific enough "Should a skydiver well known for his risky behavior (performing well above his skills) and/or disdain for safety be grounded?" meaning that "well known" implies somebody who has a consistent pattern. No such guy (or girl) has not received any advice and/or coaching concerning his (hers) behavior. Thank you for understanding! HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

Thanks for voting and sharing your thoughts! Let's wait some more for further votes and thoughts... HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

The most sincere congratulations from a very far, southern corner of the skydiving world!! Please, get past your hangover and as soon as you can, fill us in with the details! and, once again, CONGRATULATIONS! HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

500 jumps certainly count, I never said the contrary. But well, may be we finally are finding common ground and I am really glad about it! First of all, I totally agree that you (or whoever is qualified) should teach first. When I put "a skydiver well known for his risky behavior, etc., etc," I obviously meant somebody who received the teaching prior and also the teaching after performing risky maneuvers. The reality of our sport indicates that that is what happens in the real world. Nobody gets grounded right a way. If it happens it must be an absolute exception! But in the real world, there are some people who disregard safety no matter how you teach them, what you teach them and how much you teach them, out of unconsciousness or that they think is cool or whatever. One should not be compassionate with them. they risk our lives. If they go to a shrink and/or take antidepressants, good for them! But let's wait to the results before letting them jump with us. They are not the majority. They are not even a significant minority. They certainly are a small, perhaps very small minority. But it just takes one of them to cause a preventable tragedy! Do you think we can agree on this? HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

There are more in the previous thread as I said "...looking at the profiles of those who wrote replies to this poll and the previous thread,..." I agree that it is not just between black and white but it appears that you accept much darker shades of grey than I do. Anyway there are replies to your post perfectly suited that very well represent my thinking. I am not against education, I am all for it, I just draw the line much closer than you do because I cannot help thinking that other skydivers lives, including mine, are at risk. And it is not solved by just not getting into the same load because I do not necessarily know everybody who is jumping with me. HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

And shouldn't the "appropiate parties" ground them besides reimbursing your ticket? Of course! HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

After 3 days 74 Dropzone members have voted which is quite nice (I haven't seen polls with more than 200 votes except the home page ones). Let's wait for some more votes and opinions. In the meantime and by the way, looking at the profiles of those who wrote replies to this poll and the previous thread, one sees that no really experienced skydiver (1000+ jumps) is against putting restrictions in a way or another. HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

My freedom ends when it affects somebody else, as simple as that! And if I don't have personal responsibility, somebody has to make me aware of it. And if I still do not have it, there are things I cannot do... HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

I disagree. The minute you go for (3), you've lost them. They're all the more likely to just go somewhere else where they're unknown and do the exact same thing, only without uspervision or guidance. Guidance and instruction are much more effective. _Am How much education is needed? You went through steps one and two. Number two doesn't work. you still do not go for step number three because he could go to another DZ? That doesn't sound reasonable at all. You are jeopardizing safety in your DZ. If you are concerned about other DZ's (I could agree with that but I am sure that screams of protest would reach as far away as the moon), pass the word. In fact, USPA does something like that ("The US Parachute Assn (USPA) can ban a jumper, which means he can't jump at member dropzones" Wendy W) HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

Almost what I was going to say, except I would ground them for a day to get their attention! I say ground, counsel and educate. If they can't handle that then "Adios!", the safety of the majority overwhelms the minority. All right: 1) Ground them 2) Educate them 3) If they can't handle then "Adiós" And the first point is the first point. And particularly in a boogie there usually is no time for the second one. As you say, the safety of the majority overwhelms the minority. HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

To me it is clearly yes. And I thought that the vast majority of skydivers agreed with this concept. But the answers to a thread titled: Is it usual practice to prevent a skydiver of participating in a boogie if he (or she) is known for having risky behavior? made me think that many people (many more than I thought) think that skydiving should not put this kind of limits. Let's see how the voting develops! HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

All right, JPA, it is very clear that to you any behavior should be allowed, even if it endangers others. With due respect, I sure do hope you are in a clear minority. I am starting a poll about it. HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

Y'know, intending to commit suicide is far different than going beyond your skill level and intending to pull it off and survive. Someone jumping from a 10th floor building w/o a rig, or holding a gun to their head, is very different than not listening to advice from better, more experienced jumpers who've been there, done/seen that. A person who intends to suicide (or does suicide) is in a far different situation than someone who, full of ego and lacking skill, tries something they've been warned about and turned away from a dz for doing, but tries it because they honestly believe they can do it. I honestly don't see the comparison, other than death being the end result. And I could go on and on about ways to die... ......................................................................... You know, Michele, let's keep it it simple and may be we agree. Let's not suppose that somebody performing well above his skills is trying to commit suicide. But by consistently acting as he does he endangers his own life and that of others. Shouldn't that person, who is well known to act that way, be grounded? I certainly think he should. HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

I just feel that people have the right to kill themselves parachuting if they so desire ...I don't like it, but I'm not going to try and stop it. .......................................................................... Does that mean that if you see somebody ready to jump from a 10th floor or with a gun ready to shoot himself you are not going to try to stop him? This is turning philosophical, really. I believe in freedom but I certainly would try to stop somebody commiting suicide... And those that exercise risky maneuvers beyond their skills in landing potentially put everybody else at risk (it is a different story, as you say). That is why somebody well known for this kind of behavior should be consistently grounded. HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

QuoteI don't know how it works in Uruguay, but here it could happen, but it would be up to whoever was running the boogie or owned the drop zone. And that's best. .......................................................................... OK, I agree to that. It is almost impossible to set written rules concerning this issue. But DZ owners and boogie organizers should work with the concept that if somebody is well known to perform beyond his skills and/or mock safety issues he should be grounded. I think it is easier in DZ's because they don't want to have the reputation of letting any fool to jump there. In boogies, it is tougher. Fear of jeopardizing the economic feasibility of the event may make organizers more forgiving. I insist with the fact that there are clearcut cases of people who could never be allowed to board the plane. HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

By unsafe I mean not according to the skydiver's skills. Pros like Icarus Extreme have the skills to do what they do! And so on... Please don't come to me telling that with my criteria I am prohibiting Icarus Extreme!! I know that the line between safe and unsafe is not very neat in many cases. But in many others it is very neat! When it is known that somebody is consistent in trying performances well above his skills (and that includes wingloadings), I strongly believe that he should not be allowed to participate in a boogie for his own and also our own sake. HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

".......generally most sky divers will avoid loads with such careless sky divers. i have seen a few chastized, they usaully get mad and leave for the day. at boogies if you are unsafe, you will be asked to leave......." ".........At places like WFFC its more of a peer pressure thing. If you screw up your going to do it in front of hundreds of people watching that will see you that night at the beer tent and for the rest of the week. I saw some wicked toggle hooks, spirls through patterns, near canopy collisions, hard landings, broken bones, swoops right over the organising tents, etc during the last WFFC but I never saw someone chasing after people asking them to leave......" According to the first two replies: if you are unsafe, in some boogies you are asked to leave and in others not. The questions are: 1) Shouldn't it be standard practice to ask to leave an unsafe skydiver and not depend on peer pressure that may work or not? 2) Shouldn't it be standard practice to ask not to participate somebody well known for being unsafe? 3) Shouldn't safety in behavior be considered as important as a safe rig? HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

The idea for this thread came because of an incident report in the Incident Forum about a skydiver that killed himself in a low turn in a boogie in Salto, Uruguay. He was very well known to consistently take too many risks. As far as I know it is up to the individual DZ's to accept or not a skydiver based on his record. But what happens with boogies as was this the case? Do boogie organizers take into account information regarding each skydivers safety behavior when it is available and decide on accepting him or not? Shouldn't it be as much part of the safety procedures as the rig inspection is? Of course it is not as objective as a rig inspection but does this fact invalidate it? I don't think it should because of the potential danger to the skydiver himself and to other ones, even for the first jump as this was the case. HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

"The concept of risk homeostasis isn't a new one, although I think there is a lot more to it than that. Had canopy technology not changed at the same time that cypreses had become available, I would agree with the author. However, given that new canopies are simply less forgiving of error than older canopies, I think that effect is going to predominate." OK, Billvon but when you buy a new canopy you do it knowing that it has increased performance and that it is less forgiving. You buy it because of it's increased performance and accepting the increased risk. To me it is not an independent variable. It fits perfectly well within the risk homeostasis theory. It's really very interesting. I'd love to know the follow-up if there is one. HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

I am amazed that there has been only one commentary in 7 days! I found it excellent, very interesting and would like to know if there has been a follow-up. I mean, did the author keep on working on the subject? Keep us, the only two people that seem interested on the subject posted! HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

This one is the winner!!! Me too!!! HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

+ Noon - Milan Airport - full parking lot - in the car - cleaning staff nearby + Night - Beach next to El Dexquite - Huatulco, Mexico - fully dressed and standing HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

Yes! I also started at a relatively "mature" age (48). Now I'm 50, have 200+ jumps and I can assure you two things: 1) my learning is definitely slower than for younger ones 2) it doesn't matter, I have a great time! I am not in the sport to compete, to be a pro or likewise. I'm in it for fun. As long as you keep your real objective in mind, it won't be bothersome to be a slower learner... Remember, skydiving is the sport that provides you with with four pleasures: 1) the pleasure of freefall 2) the pleasure of navigation 3) the pleasure of disconnecting with your problems 4) the pleasure of friendship Each one is as important as the other to me. Keep on! HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757