MotherGoose

At first I'm thinking this was just a funny thread. I actually took the time to read through it all because, well I'm at work and getting paid to. After reading it the first time I wanted to jump on the one bandwagon that says if you don't come often enough then don't cry if you're not accepted. But then I re-read your initial post and thought about it. How many people actually get in more than 50 jumps in their first year anyway? I mean really, in the grand scheme of global skydiving (not just at the largest dropzones). Before you get your own gear, this sport is ridiculously expensive, even after you get your own gear, unless you have a rating, this sport is expensive (ratings cost big bucks too). Turns out this post is not really about "am I a real skydiver if I don't jump as often as the other guy?". It's not even about, "my dad's passion is bigger than your dad's passion". If you read through most of the nonsense in this thread, you get the underlying issue. The OP has an issue with a couple of individuals at his dz and instead of dealing with them, he came on dz.com to harp about them without their perspective being presented fairly. Not cool in my opinion. Dave said it best when he mentioned that if you don't show commitment, most instructors (which are basically volunteers) won't take the time to help you. People come and go in this sport like bad smells. Why waste your time with someone who is not going to come back because "life got in the way" ?? Or maybe you do have instructors who are complete assholes, but that's not for dz.com to decide, you should confront people and tell them how you feel. In the end, you can jump once a year if you like or once an hour. That's not what makes you part of the community. Your acceptance in the community is determined by how you present yourself when you ARE at the dz. I know plenty of people who visit the dz only a couple times a year, but they are humble and not cocky and know their limits and understand when no one wants to do a 10way on their first dive back from a 6 month layoff. Enjoy the sport at your own pace, and communicate with your dropzone peers/instructors. Don't come on here and talk smack. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

Contrary to the belief of the gentleman in question, there was never any ground or air video of the incident. The dropzone only has access to one single photo of the malfunction, taken by a spectator (attached) which CLEARLY indicates a problem with the main that should have been identified very early, not below 1000 ft.. Also, this photo proves once and for all that he could NOT have been plummeting towards the earth at 120mph as he continuously demanded in the media. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

++++++++1 Can I make this my signature ??!! Humans....we're an odd animal aren't we? You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

To be honest, you've got to let this one go. He's had his moment, now he is quiet. There is no need to start the snowball down the hill again. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

That's funny that you brought up that radio interview. That was me that phoned in to set this guy straight. I promised my wife I would remain calm and rationally explain to him what he did wrong but the things this guy started spouting off about just pissed me right off and I couldn't help myself. The radio show was of no help either, they are one of those "shock jock" type shows that are always trying to be funny. All they were looking for was ways to make fun of this guy and once the conversation got too serious, they hung up on us both. He's definitely in the running for a Lutz because of his media relations skills and his lack of accountability. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

The "case" that he may have thought he had for "injuring" his neck on a hard landing under a reserve (downwind) without a proper PLF. He was on TV with a neck brace, talking about how his doctor was supposed to get back to him about injured neck vertebrae. Funny thing is, we tracked him on FB (dumbass), and found photos of him the night of the incident, partying and dancing for his 50th birthday. That kinda kills any injury case if you ask me. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

The good news is, after 4 newspaper spots, 3 local television appearances and 2 radio interviews . . . he has finally gone away. We think he was fishing around for a lawyer to take his case pro bono but in one of his radio interviews, he was mocked pretty good by the hosts and asked if there were any waivers signed. He replied, "well yah, like seven of them". This didn't help his case. His 15 days of fame are over, and now he's the top nominee for the 2010 Lutz Award : http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#!/pages/The-Lutz-Award/105432892831417?ref=ts You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

I wish more people had your attitude and stopped trying to force-feed mandatory AAD rules down everyone's throat. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

Arguing for the sake of arguing ? If I'm a DZO/S&TA and someone is constantly losing altitude awareness, they're not jumping anymore. Period. And that has NOTHING to do with democracy. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

Not to infer that anyone is implying this . . . but . . . if people are losing track of altitude on a regular basis, is the solution to give them an "out" to continue with such reckless behaviour and rely on a device, or would it be wiser to educate such people and possibly remove their privelage to jump? Again, most of this is ridiculously hypothetical but nonetheless, it doesn't hurt to discuss. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

If you are performing skydives that could get you knocked out, then I highly recommend using an AAD. What if you are a career hop-n-popper? Never see people in freefall, should AAD's be mandatory across the board ? Hell no. I'm glad they are there if I choose to use one. I feel bad because I joined the bandwagon on the argument for or against mandatory aad's in a thread the was looking simply for reasons people have not to buy one. To add value to the thread, I didn't buy one for a long time because of price. When I finally bought one, it was off a friend for very little $$$. The risk/reward ratio for me personally is different, that's the great thing about democracy - CHOICE. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

I'd just like to clarify, that myself and I believe the others are not "anti-aad" in any way. Anti-mandatory-aad is the right term for us. And, I do own a fully functional Cypres that is installed in my one and only rig. I feel comfortable not jumping with one, I've done at least 750 without an aad. If my batteries die or my cypres expires I don't want to be on the ground or renting unfamiliar gear because of some blanket rule. Mandatory aad rules introduce as many problems as they alleviate. As for the seatbelt rule, they are also not infallible and there are still incidents to this day that involve death caused by seatbelts. Also, there is a reason why we (society) decided that seatbelts should be mandatory except on schoolbuses full of children (or transit buses in general). Because there are always "exceptions" to the rules. I like the fact that when I entered this sport I had to wear an aad, no choice. But I also liked that at some point, when I bought my own gear, I could choose whether or not I wanted to own one. There will always be exceptions and I don't want to be limited by a rule/law. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

"But it's a choice. If I were to die because I didn't have an AAD it wouldn't really be any sillier than if I were to die because I mishandled a malfunction." Thanks Wendy. People think an AAD is a free ticket to be complacent. Some even RELY on them. Nothing can be more outside of the purpose of AAD's. They are and SHOULD BE a choice. And they SHOULD NEVER be a backup plan. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

I can't believe I missed the word "OR" on that page. That is one HUGE two letter word that changes things dramatically, regarding what I was talking about. So, UPT does NOT require a videographer to be a TI/AFFI to fly relative to tandems. 500 RW jumps is not unreasonable, as long as they aren't telling people to go get ratings just to fly with tandems. Thanks for clarifying that. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

Thanks for your post, but it is not relevant to my point. Let's talk strictly about a videographer with 2000 jumps but no TI/AFFI rating. No one is defending the 100 jump wonders for the um-teenth time. Edited to add UPT manual excerpt. See requirement #2. MUST be either a current TI or AFF jumpmaster. I got news for you, a large majority of video flyers are in violation (unfairly) and they have many thousands of jumps. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

"Yes. But it is far, far better to avoid lawsuits by not having student deaths or injuries to begin with. And if those guidelines help prevent such deaths/injuries - we come out ahead as a sport." I'll NEVER argue that. But my point still stands. 2000 jump videographers with no TI/AFFI rating are violating UPT's rules. This, I maintain, is ridiculous. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

Sorry we keep posting at the same time !! You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

I agree with you on so many levels, I'm hoping my point is not getting lost. So let's say I choose to break a UPT rule and allow a non-TI/AFFI videographer to jump with me. Let's then say that by sheer accident, the tandem student is very unstable and we shift or spin and the camera guy collides with the student and gives them a black eye or something (whatever, not important to the point). The student goes home and gets talked into suing the dz for their misfortune. The lawyer looks up the manual and then sniffs around for everyone's credentials and finds the vidiot does not meet the criteria clearly spelled out by the mfgr. Easy money. Even though the vidiot has 2000 jumps, easy money. Thats all Im saying. The wording is too cut and dry for the complexity of all of the various situations and levels of experience in this sport. I'm not even talking about the 100 jump wonder that wants to exit with their girlfriend's tandem. I'm talking about experienced people, with unfortunate "accidents" and the subsequent liability based on a few words on a paper. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

"You really consider that "fine print?" Given that that "fine print" can kill you, best treat it like the rest of the manual - as important information that you ignore at your own peril. " Just to clarify, we're having meaningful conversation, I respect you a lot Bill. I just don't see how the mfgr spelling out such specific rules is helping us? At all the DZ's I jump at, there are several vidiots that are incredibly talented and all have between 1000-2000 jumps. What they don't have is any desire to get a tandem rating or an AFF rating. Now, according to UPT, they are not qualified to jump relative to a tandem and a lawyer could use this as fuel for a lawsuit in the event of an unforeseen accident. This is where I believe the wording is TOO STRONG in the manual. Im glad UPT states their opinions on what is safe and should be practiced, but to say anyone not following that is in violation of the user agreement and will not be legally allowed to do tandems is just plain self-preservation. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

Bill, thats apples to oranges. Cessna does NOT interfere with regulating skydiving just like UPT should not interfere with regulating tandem RW. How to use the gear, I see their interest. Who should jump beside someone using the gear . . . not so much. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

If Mr. Booth does not want to be in the business of regulation, then maybe he should remove the words "not optional" and replace them with "we recommend" or something along those lines, in the Sigma manual. I just think that maybe the "Other Activities" section of the manual is too strongly worded for someone who's not interested in the regulation aspect of the sport. If I feel safe with someone, we jump and an unavoidable accident occurs, lawyer will be able to jump all over me if the person on the jump with me did not fit the exact criteria of the manufacturer. Even if said person had nothing to do with the incident, but they were in the air, there could be repercussions. I apologize if I'm completely off-base here and sounding naive, but can't equipment mfgr's just provide recommendations instead of saying things like : "They must be followed, or the Tandem Instructor and Tandem rig owner will be in violation of the User Agreement under which Tandem jumping is operated and will consequently no longer be allowed to legally perform Tandem Jumps." Something more appropriate would be, "We strongly recommend the following guidelines, but ultimately the DZO, rig owner and tandem instructor are responsible for their choices and actions". Why give the blood-sucking lawyers more to bite on ? You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

Thanks for the replies. I'm really just trying to get a "feel" for how seriously the written UPT rules are interpreted and enforced. In the end, I get the ultimate say on who's in the air with my tandem and I will not hesitate to exercise that control. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

I realize this is a touchy subject, but could anyone comment on my question? Are the UPT rules in their own manual just being openly ignored ? Can we safely say that there are more dz's that have videographers that don't fit into the UPT requirements ? Is there a way around this, for instance I read on here that Bill Booth does not want to be on the regulation side of the sport and that USPA should handle that, yet there is still strong wording in the UPT manual that dictates minimums that MUST be followed? From a legal standpoint, if I jump with my tandem student and the dz assigns me a video guy that has 502 jumps, and no tandem or AFF rating, and somewhere in freefall we collide and the student gets a kick in the nose (OR WORSE), am I in the wrong? If that student goes home and calls his lawyer, will they be after me and the rig owner for allowing that videographer to jump with me when they did not meet the minimum requirements ? This is a pretty important topic since it could quite easily deplete the tandem video population significantly. Lots of skilled flyers out there, but if something happens by sheer accident, any half-assed lawyer could dig up a negligence angle based on the wording in the manual. Is anyone else concerned about this ? Or...business as usual? You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

I'll use UPT as an example for my question. So, is the section in the UPT manual that states the minimums for any RW jump with a tandem just openly ignored ? I am curious since this topic came up recently at our instructor review. From a liability perspective, it would appear that an incident inquiry would compare the UPT mandatory requirements to the experience level of the people involved and negligence could easily be proved. Does anyone have any further insight on this ? You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

Best point of the whole thread. I keep telling jumpers to relax and pay your dues. The sad part is, DZOs that dont enforce rules on their own dropzones undermine coaches like me when I tell sub-200 jumpers not to jump with ANY camera. DSE - the inevitability of a fatality related to this very topic is stifling. You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.