notaccountable

"Booth Industries" works in both markets. __________________________________________________ DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE; JUST A THOUGHT

There is some really good information in here so far that may help you get where you want to go. The main thing I would add is that you might consider jumping the same size canopy for a while. Maybe stop the down sizing game, and learn to fly the canopy you are presently jumping with. This will build a level of consistency for you so the only variable will be the wind which will always be a variable. Jumping different glide paths and wing loadings along with varying wind conditions really makes it challenge even for more experienced skydivers to be accurate consistently. The turning final at 200’ may be a little low to make small correction on final to land where you want to. The higher you can turn final the more time you have to make minor corrections. I have most students target 400’ as their turn to final. This allows a little more time to develop a good sense of depth perception, and it will help keep things from feeling like they are happening too fast for you. Remember to a certain extent the wind conditions will affect where you do your turns at, but not to the extreme that turning below 200’ is a good idea for students. Lastly, and most importantly you really need to listen to your instructors at your dropzone. They are on sight and can give the best information. I would recommend getting to know one canopy and sticking with it for a while. Your learning curve will grow that much faster. P.S. Nice job on those stand up landings. Just remember not to try and force them, it can be painful. If it’s there, then stand up; if not PLF. (DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

Both of those have easy dumb answers - ban hook turns and require RSL's. __________________________________________________ I'm sure we both know what can of worms that can open. Who defines hook turns, 90, 180, 270? Maybe require AAD's on mains as well etc.... __________________________________________________ The problem is minimizing fatalities _without_ taking draconian measures like the ones above. I think education is one very good way to do it - but unfortunately no one controls the education jumpers get. Some swoopers get education via Scott Miller, or JC Coclasure, or through a decent coach. Unfortunately, some get their 'education' through watching people do stupid things and get away with it 99 times out of 100. Who hasn't heard the old "What do you mean, a Sabre 135 at 50 jumps is a mistake? Jeffy over there jumped a Stiletto 135 at 50 jumps! You're a hypocrite for criticizing me!" __________________________________________________ I totally agree with you. It seems there is less and less leadership in these rolls. I believe the education of the safety in this sport is paramount. Would it be too unthinkable to require jumper to pass a proficiency test of canopy flight before downsizing or swooping? I know this is a tough question between policing and freedom, but if freedom is killing our sport, maybe we do need some policing. I remember the days when ZP's came out, and you had to have a certain number of jumps to have one, then the higher performance ones required like 600 jumps, yet that kind of went away. You are still required to get a PRO rating to do certain demos; that hasn't gone away. More and more people are killing themselves under good canopies. The rsl thing, well maybe practice your emergency procedures more often? IF YOU CUT YOUR MAIN AWAY, PULL YOUR RESERVE HANDLE. Our sport isn't growing like it was, and more skydivers are dying. Anyone for a two way, or pass the baton? I've enjoyed chatting with you about this. It seems that you've been around for a long time, and continue to make efforts for the safety and future of our sport. Just a personal "thank you". (DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

I would agree with it taking more work. The risk is close to the same as taking that 100 girl that is too flexible for her own good. Gotta love those first jump sit flyers. It is more work with gearing up (especially if over weight), more work hooking up in the plane (less room), less work in freefall for the most part, unless they are 6'10" with a huge wingspan; more wear and tear on the TI's body at opening, and more work on landing. The lighter person is easier to hook up, more of a pain in freefall, and back in the day when you needed help flaring; was almost useless with lack of strength, but now days doesn't play that much of a factor. The extra pay for over 200 partially came from TI's upset because they make the same money on the 150 lb person as they would on the 240 lb person with causing more work due to weight and size. The DZO isn't going to absorb the cost, so it's passed onto the student, and rightly so, it's more work dealing with a larger person. It's a motivatar for the TI to step up and do more work. I just don't see the "more risk", as a deciding factor on more pay. Ok, I'll give you 10 dollar to jump off a cliff without a rig, fine 20, 30? Not to make light of the inherent risk factor of being a TI to begin with, but I don't see that as being the determining factor. The lighter person doesn't get a discount, because that's where the standard price rate was derived from. Why it's 200?, well it's an easy round number and it's in the ball park of increasing work load. It's not a magical number at which there is some major shift. If it were at 190, then people at 195 would post the same greivance; or at 210 the 205er's would be fine. Sometimes it is what it is. If it were a risk issue, then it would seem the TI would be paid more as the day goes on, because of the fatigue on the body from doing tandems all day CAN increase the risk factor as well as other scenarios. I do agree that an over weight out of shape person has a greater risk of being injured on tandems. Many stats are out there to validate that one. From a legal standpoint this COULD increase the risk of liability to the TI even though they sign a waiver. The old rule of thumb was if the student could jump off of the tailgate of a truck without incident, then they would be good to go (provided they were under the TSO'd combined weight limit). It doesn't seem to be the case as much today. (DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

And this is really funny. You are jumping all over me, and insulting me for tying to let people know of the potential dangers, yet make claims that I am not trying to promote safety. How does that work? Everything is OK except don't touch your sacred cow? __________________________________________________ You stated earlier the reasons the convention is so much more dangerous, but you only had one valid point. It does run for a longer time period. You've conceded that's it's not so much bigger than other boogies now days. By default you've conceded that jumping at a new or unfamiliar area is not to blame as a stand out to the convention because, by definition that is what a boogie is. Many people come from many other (home) dropzones to jump at a different dropzone (unfamiliar). Maybe suggesting making the convention a shorter duration would make it justifibly just as dangerous and any other boogie, and not MORE dangerous? Have you suggested this to anyone? Might be worth it for them to look into. Thanks for the input to help the convention, as well as other boogies safer, maybe determining the time of the boogie with degraded response times, and performance fatigue. I would agree with that. By the way, I'm new to posting here, and the convention has just ended. Ever think that's why my posts are pertaining to the convention? Ponderous man, real Ponderous (DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

I used it because people die there, every single year (with very few exceptions.) The trick is making sure you're not that person - which is what the article addressed. I'd like to think that we can just eliminate the fatalities, but we've been trying for a long time now, and no luck yet. __________________________________________________ I do agree about eliminating the fatalities there as well as everywhere. How can we, as a skydiving community, stop a person from doing a hook turn into a truck? How can we stop someone from cutting away from a spinning mal and spend the rest of his life trying to get stable? Do we just bash the event out of existence (as some have stated). If that were the case we would have very few dropzones to jump at. It seems this event has been the subject of many debats, but few willing to make it a better/safer place to be. Is it a mystical place that we must remove our heads prior to jumping or can we as a community (EVERYONE involved) work together to make it a safer place for people to jump. Just a thought, but isn't the convention made up of skydivers for skydivers. It almost sounds like it's us against them, but who is the "them"? It's US. (DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

In Reply To ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And I think maybe your level of safety is questionable...From YOU: "In 95' I was driving to Las Vegas from Eloy. I got bored and took a break by stopping at a bridge (Burrow Creek). I decided to tie off my reserve free bag and take my chances(skydiving rig). I had no idea how high the bridge was or how fast my reserve would open" ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------- Whoa! Where did THAT come from? You're attributing it to "notaccountable" — but — your post is the first time i saw it. Did i miss something? __________________________________________________ First of all please note the date of the stupidity, second of all you did not copy the rest of the posting stating that it was one of the dumbest things I've ever done. The name I'm posting with is a play on words. It seems that so few people are accountable for their actions in this sport. It was meant to be an attention getter. If me sharing this situation leads you to question my concerns for safety, then for that I'm sorry. My intentions are pure. __________________________________________________ On one certain level (maybe semantic?), i can see your point about the title, while on another level, the basic goal of "Surviving" skydiving—in and of itself—is a key factor in what we do, don't you think? To me, Bill's article is more along the lines of the mentality behind "Safety Day" procedures, with emphasis on precautionary measures we can take to try and protect ourselves, and i don't think too many people—including you (i imagine)—would consider "Safety Day" principles as being negative or derogatory. __________________________________________________ I do not recall "Safety Day" being labeled "Surviving Skydiving Day". Do you feel that if the same information was provided, yet having a different name could put a negative spin on the topic at hand? Maybe I see this wrong. It was just my perception when reading the information provided. I like and agree with most of the content. I also thank Bill for taking the time and caring enough about this sport to present his article. (DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

If you could organize your reply better, some of us might have a clue what you are actually saying. I'm not going to look at every prior post just to see who is who. Thanks. __________________________________________________ Thanks for the information. I will most certainly make a better attempt in the future. Any suggestion on improving, that would be a great help. As of now I cut and paste statements to this post from other posts to give reference to. If there is a better way please educate me. (DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

Specifics about hosing down the truck and subsequent biohazard treatment of the blood-sodden ground are part of the aftermath of the accident, and are legitimate aspects of the discussion. Mentioning them is a matter-of-fact recognition of some ramifications of what happened, acknowledging the potentially traumatic after-effects for those who witnessed it and the onus for those responsible for the clean-up process. To criticize and attempt to censor references to such details obstructs and detracts from the purpose — and usefulness — of a forum where the goal is to learn something from the incident and to try and find a way to curb the occurrence of such incidents in the future. __________________________________________________ You have misunderstood my rebuttal to your earlier statement. I am not about censorship. I live in a free country, with little censorship so I have no case to argue with that point. You made the statement about "of a forum where the goal is to learn something from the incident and to try and find a way to curb the occurrence of such incidents in the future." Please explain to me how someone who chooses to hang around well after the incident to watch this process and sharing it with others will achieve the goal of this forum as you've defined it. I fail to see this point. With relation to Bill; I've read his "surviving the WFFC" articLe. I found it very informative and educational, but my concern is more in the title. "Surviving"? It seems to be a derogatory comment in it's own right. If you would like to increase your chances of survival it seems you would continue to do some of the same things you've done and been trained to do your entire skydiving life, I don't think it's some black hole that sucks people in, Up is still up, and down is still down. This would pertain to ANY venue anywhere. You seem to be a very insightful and pleasant person. This sport could use more people like you. (DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

To quote a previous post: "A swing and a miss." __________________________________________________ I see you two think alike as well. Very sad, but at least you have a buddy. __________________________________________________ The man is from another country and a visitor to the US and WFFC. It is not his job to play DZ sheriff. __________________________________________________ So whether it's at the WFFC or any other boogie, you are telling it's NOT HIS JOB???? No wonder this sport isn't progressing much anymore. It's attitudes like that, that are killing off our sport and jumpers. It IS his job to do any and everything he can to help with a SELF policing sport. I just don't think you have a clue. __________________________________________________ There is someone who is running the WFFC as a business and making money from it. Do think it might be his job to run things is a safe manner? __________________________________________________ I would assume there are people in place to assist with these efforts, as with any boogie. __________________________________________________ I am beginning to think that you might have a vested interest in sweeping possible problems under the carpet. __________________________________________________ Oh let's see here.... I'M THE GUY SAYING WE ALL NEED TO STAND UP AND POLICE OUR SPORT TOGETHER TO MAKE IT A SAFER PLACE FOR ALL, and you are saying it's his job???? I DO have a vested interest in my sport, you are right about that. I would like to keep it around for a while, but with the "it's not my job attitudes" it WILL be reduced and controlled by people that do not have an interest in skydiving in the future. You might want to talk fact and information, instead of trying to just flame. Ego??? I have none. Mission: to get people to start taking responsibility for their actions. You've pinned it's the WFFC. I guess it's on here, because it has just happened, but it's the entire sport of skydiving. __________________________________________________ And we wonder why so much of the world looks at us as arrogant assholes. __________________________________________________ From what I've read in your replies, I can see exactly why people feel that way, feel free to quit for the collective effort of all involved. Take one for the team. Or you could grow up and address the issues and concerns with actions of someone that actually CARES about this sport. (DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

My place, wrong. My mother is dead. I'm stating my views just as you are. People are free to read them just as they are free to research your to confirm what is being said as fact. I know others have realized a long time ago that they are dealing with a very bitter person, and have just gotten used to it. I was only trying in vein for you to see that. I believe never too old to grow. That's just me. By the way I'm assuming that you calling me a "troll" is supposed to be insulting. I'm sorry I haven't heard that so I haven't been, but I'll work on it just for you. I see how important it is to you. (DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

would this have happend at your home DZ? _________________________________________________ I'm actually sick and tired of hearing that statement from you. Evidently you must just at the only dropzone in the US that is error proof... Oh wait a minute you jump at a dropzone that has had 4 deaths in the past five years. You've had a guy jumping a canopy for a very long time that pretty much everyone around has talk with hopes of him saving his own life and stop trying to swoop. Everyone around said it's only a matter of time, yet he was still jumping this canopy. I could go on and on. So the answer is 'YES' it CAN happen at your own dropzone. It appears you scroll through threads looking for a WFFC bashing moment. I've reviewed your reply's and threads. It's sad. I hope you find someone that will bring you happiness, I sincerely mean that. No one should have to go through life is such pain. With all due respect (DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

You think I am head hunting the WFFC...Nope ________________________________________________ No, actually I do think you are WFFC bashing. I’ve read many posts from many people over time. You have been on a hunting trip for quite a while. You haven’t carried the same attitude with regard to other venue’s when presented the opportunity to do so. Your attitude is inconsistent. Unnecessary inflammatory comment removed by slotperfect It seems too bitter, to be genuine. As an example I feel Bill is a little negative about the WFFC, but his comments are consistent, and don’t seem personally driven toward the WFFC. He has at least made an effort to educate people through some of his articles, and help them when attending the WFFC. I believe the term “skygod” was being used to replace the more accurate word of comment removed by slotperfect. If you haven’t been to the WFFC in a while, and reference your experience to project onto the present WFFC; that’s ignorance. I don’t know how more simplified I can be about this. Example for the kids: If you haven’t been skydiving for a while and come back to help others by teaching them the big X or banana turns. Times change, situations change, you seem to not even factor that into consideration. I’m sorry for your bitterness, but you might get help to move on. What amazes me is that the WFFC was put in place for skydivers, about skydivers, the largest event in the world and all about skydivers, yet there are a few people that choose to try to flame the convention out of existence; by the way the flaming just feeds the convention. It’s the nature of the sport to step outside of the box. I could just imagine if have of the people that complain about the WFFC stepped up and offered to help with these safety concerns that are looming in the shadows of the convention. Instead of just griping and complaining about it. Stand up and help if you really are concerned, if not then I guess you really are just a bitter person, and not even skydiving can help that one. You make comments about experienced as compared to older. Bottom line experienced does NOT equate to safe. Check the stats, more experienced skydivers die each year than newbees, unless you define experienced at 10000+jumps. Anita, I enjoyed your earlier post, but I must strongly disagree with one point about the blood, and hosing the truck. I’m sorry, but no matter how you look at that it has NOTHING to do with the cause or assisting in education to prevent this from the future. If you are someone you know saw this, then it is your own fault to have to live with, not to be thrown around like a party favor. I feel it was totally tasteless. NOONE forced anyone to hang around for such a sight. If someone stayed around for such a period of time with morbid curiosity, then they get what they, not as a vivid image to impress upon other. No VALUE. Now for the people that heard/saw the accident could not have been avoided, and for that my heart goes out to those people to heal the pain and continue to live life they are blessed to live. (DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

I have no idea who you are, nor do I care. I'm not attacking you. I do respect the fact that you evidently you love skydiving and traveled so far to join us in the US whether it be the WFFC or Summerfest. I'm providing information. I do commend you on your efforts to train up your younger jumpers. That is a breath of fresh air. If only the leader of your group was a concerned about the younger jumpers safety, then maybe they might listen to them. I do sincerely commend you for your efforts. I would recommend more leadership skills to promote others to follow your way of being safety conscience. It would be a good leader to have around. You might have tried to tell your buddy going to the pitts not to go. Just a point of education. If you jump a non-tethered balloon you will most likely NOT land at the airport where you departed from. If you jump the jet you may not land on the airport you departed from. If you jump a 182 you may not land at the airport you departed from. You chose to jump the aircraft which reduced your odds of landing at the airport to nearly 0. Not much I can say about that. People have made rules, it's called the USPA and the FAA. There were several safety people there, and going out to talk to people who chose to violate the rules. If you have ideas I'm sure it wouldn't fall on deaf ears, but it seems you can't keep your own crew in order, it's a collective effort from ALL of us to keep this sport as safe as it can be. Again, with all due respect. (DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

the same applies to a non-sober PARACHUTIST. the same applies to a PARACHUTIST violating cloud restrictions. the same applies to a PARACHUTIST who does NOT check for aircraft before jumping. the same applies to a PARACHUTIST that pencil packs. I could go on. any such event could damage the sport just like the cited example. care to guess which one occurs the least? _________________________________________________ This has been a very interesting thread. First of all I'm really not sure why Mr. Peek posted this, motive carries understanding. If it was to get a RISE out of the dz.comers, then it worked, but I would disagree with motive. If it was to share someone making an effort to protect the sport, pilot, convention, and the base jumper (only to the point of RUSHING to pack...not smart), then I commend him in his efforts. I wish more people would make a stand without fear that someone might call them a "square" or belittling them. I guess then we WOULD actually be self policing. Given the fact this jumper didn't respect the fact an "elder" was intervening in the name of protection/safety, there must be more done. Some say the S&TA... wow now that's a stretch...this guy would listen to the S&TA, but not a USPA Regional Director who appoints S&TA's???? Someone didn't think through that one. BOTTOM LINE it's ALL of our responsibilities to police this sport, hence SELF policing. The fact that the jump didn't happen at that given time was good, but it appeared no education was received by the would-be jumper. Maybe he would do the next balloon run or at a future venue. He needed to be made to understand that was he was doing was wrong. It's that simple. By whatever means necessary. Preferably a chain of command, but Mr. Peek was near the top of the chain to begin with. WFFC Staff, S&TA, Regional Director, Board of Director( as I've researched), To sum it up that takes us to the FAA. Those are the only two governing bodies in this sport. With that being said, I know Dixie, and for those of you that don't; she single handedly forced the approval of the DC-9 for the convention. She has fought for the last year (literally), to get this approved for skydivers. She went against her own kind simply for our pleasure. You make your own choice's, but she is in MY skydiving family now and forever. It was one of the most selfless acts I've seen a person make. I even asked her "why?". She said "because I love you guys, and those old grouches need to be stirred up every now and then". I know she's a skydiver at heart. The real issue is that this would-be jumper was violating the rules and regulations. This person is the problem, not the person that stood up against him. If you choose to do nothing and make statements like "oh skydivers do much worse things than this" as some sort of a justification is pretty much ridiculous. You must be the person that gets pulled over for speeding and tells the cop "shouldn't you be out catching real criminals" If you are breaking the law, then you ARE a criminal. Accept some accountability. That's why my name is "notaccountable". I figured I would fit right in with many of the posts I've seen. We are blessed with a great freedom in this sport. With freedom comes responsibility. If we lose responsibility we WILL lose our freedom. Because you've seen someone pencil pack a reserve and did nothing about it, but someone makes effort to stop/or at least educate someone on an illegal base jump from a "lighter-than-air" aircraft; don't condemn him for doing his part to protect our freedom. As far as the statement "it's an agreement between the pilot and the jumper"????? I'm amazed that someone could have that attitude if they care about our sport. I'm sorry, but if affects everyone in our sport. Using that mentality we would not have an issue supporting people wanting to make one skydive and not pull because they want to commit suicide. It doesn't hurt you; this person doesn't hurt anyone else, but himself/herself. I don't think that is going to hold water. Like it or not WE are in this together. We collectively can have our freedom or we can collectively lose it. I would agree that is was "stupid" for someone to do this in our sport. I'm not questioning if it was any safer or not as safe as doing a base jump. By definition B.A.S.E., it was not a base jump. It was an attempt to skydive using a base rig. It affects everyone involved (skydiving community). Last case and point. In 95' I was driving to Las Vegas from Eloy. I got bored and took a break by stopping at a bridge (Burrow Creek). I decided to tie off my reserve free bag and take my chances(skydiving rig). I had no idea how high the bridge was or how fast my reserve would open. Well, it worked. When I got back to Cali. I told Annie Heliwell (friend, and base jump company owner) about the event. She was PISSED for a lack of a better word. She said "kill yourself if you must in skydiving, but don't you mess up my sport with your stupidity." She said it with love, but I got her point. It was one of the dumbest things I've ever done. I love base jumping, and I love skydiving. I have much respect for both. (ARE YOU DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE; JUST A THOUGHT)