MyTwoCents

The smiley probably indicates you meant that as a joke, but I consider that a more dangerous prank than the one in question. Loose stuff in a plane typically freaks people out a lot. As for the original prank. It's only funny when you do it to a complete beginner coming from a static-line program doing his first five seconds from 4000 feet or less. And that was a joke as well of course...

I disagree. Your contract with the manufacturer ends the moment you leave an object. It is spelled out that way in most contracts (i.e., you can return the gear for a full refund before you make the first jump on it), but on a deeper level, every jumper is ultimately responsible for his own gear. I'd hate to see the day a gear manufacturer gets sued for faulty gear. That said, nothing stops you from preferring one manufacturer over another based on previous experience of course. Personally, I have no problems with the rare cases that a manufacturer sends out faulty gear. As Kevin points out; we're all human and we all make mistakes. Nobody stops us from sewing our own gear after all. What is more important to me is how a manufacturer handles such incidents, and that's to me what separates a good manufacturer (which most are) from a great one (which Asylum is...

The internet junkie spoke first

I didn't risk any lives. People make their own choices. All we can do is give advice and try to mitigate consequences that go beyond the individual. I would have encouraged Calvin's friend to take a course. I wrote the getting-in-to-BASE part on BASE WIKI and I strongly urge everybody therein to take a First Jump Course (among taking other preparations). However, what I think is a good idea is not what matters here. In my Speaker's Corner opinion, limits to freedom are bounded in as far as they affect other people's lives and the environment. In this case, I don't think there is a problem. In the case of driving on the right side of the road, I do think there is a problem; that's why it's the law. What is? That I'm okay with that occasionally people die so I can enjoy greater freedom? It's not a black and white thing; I'm happy I'm not on a curfew after eight PM just because I might get mugged on the streets in the dark. Conversely, I'm happy that I don't have the freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road. A whuffo could easily extrapolate your insinuation that my statement was ridiculous by claiming that skydiving should be forbidden alltogether, because some people might die. If I worded it this way; sometimes a skydiver will fuck it up and die. That's a price I'm willing to pay for having the freedom to skydive. Is that a ridiculous statement as well? That would be odd, considering you have 1800 skydives. Did Calvin's friend do a smart thing? I don't think so. There are better ways to get into skydiving. Should it be made illegal? I prefer not.

No, definitely not. I got into skydiving doing a KNVVL (Dutch USPA) approved static-line course. The smallest canopy I've ever flown was a 170 loaded at 0.9. Most of my skydiving has been on Manta 220s and 260 square foot accuracy canopies. I got into BASE jumping doing two, not one, first-jump-courses, and followed up with multiple experienced mentors. I've done my fair share of stupid shit, but most BASE jumpers would say I've taken a fairly conservative and well prepared road into BASE. I also happen to the founder and maintainer of BASE WIKI. I'm all for knowledge dissemination and giving people the most information and training they can possibly get before commiting to gravity. However... No, it's not just you. It's the multitude of skydivers that come to experience it as just another pasttime like golf and bowling. The number of skydivers that actually have a clue about risk management is dwindling fast. The rest just turns on their AAD and leaves the plane for a quick rollercoaster ride. You end up with people like this: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1679011;. A person jumping a small canopy (given her experience) wearing only sandals, then hurting her feet because she had to land out, on asphalt. Sad but okay in my book, until you read the kicker; she starts blaming her training and instructors. I consider this a bad thing, but I'm not so elitist to call people on it per se. After all, who am I to say what the spirit of skydiving is like? I can only have my own opinion on the matter. However, when you start referring back to the pioneers in the sport you're crossing a line. Some of the pioneers would laugh at the kind of MTV past-time our sport has become. It has nothing to do with what skydiving was originally about; to push the boundaries of human flight while the rest of the world says it's impossible. I do not know the "friend" that decided to jump without USPA training. I do know Calvin and he is a respected skydiver, climber, rope-jumper, paraglider pilot, BASE jumper and airplane pilot. He knows a thing or two about risk management. I'm also confident that his friend would admit his mistake and take full ownership, should any accident have occured. I would pick Calvin as a mentor over many of the instructors I see on my local dropzones. And I am proud that we live in a world where people have the freedom to decide which teacher may be better than others. Yes, that freedom comes at a price. Sometimes a bad teacher will find a bad student, they'll fuck it up and a person will die. That's a price I'm willing to pay for freedom. Furthermore, there is no proof in the history books that such accidents happens very often. As for the affect such incidents can have on our sport; it is rather condenscending towards the general populace to assume they don't have the intelligence to separate sheer stupidity from pilot error. I know the media likes to put a spin on stories, but most people realize that skydiving is here to stay. Come to think of it; the USPA or FAA would much sooner install laws to prohibit a free choice of canopy size, given the number of people hooking themselves into the ground. Nobody is going to lose any sleep over a freak accident because some student wasn't well prepared. Somebody once said; "...I don't care, I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me..."

It's not the problem at all, since we are not the ones making the jump. The informally trained person is. For the most part, we are not part of the equation. As long as that person has reached a certain degree of maturity, he or she should be able to decide for himself whether or not his method of training is appropriate. That touches on the core of skydiving; responsibility for the choices we make. Here you do touch on something that has some relevance. The public's perception of our sport can have an impact on our continued enjoyment of it. But that is first and foremost an issue with the public (whom we need to educate by telling them when accidents are caused by sole stupidity) and only secondary with us.

As close as can be? You can't be further from the truth. You've read their words and seen their struggles, but you've never made a skydive in your life! You've merely hopped out a plane. Teaching a friend with no experience how to skydive and then getting him onto a plane using a falsified logbook is one of the purest forms of human flight imaginable. Not necessarily the smartest, but definitely true to the spirit. I wish I would have had that opportunity. Thanks Lisa. Thanks for ruining skydiving for so many of us.

Not to distract from your overal comment, but are you referring to the scared tandem jumper scene? I couldn't find much wrong with that, and given it won some money on American Funniest Home videos, it seems that quite a few Americans agree that it was funny.

It seems with every jump I do the risks become less clear to me. I used to say "whatever happens, no regrets" before my early jumps. What a load of shit. You best believe I'm gonna regret ever coming close to a parachute the day I don't use one succesfully.

Let me guess; slider-up subterminal with less than ideal brake-settings?

That's a personal attack! I'll let you decide whom is being attacked here; Jaap or Faber.

Big difference, retards can defend themselves. Just digging a hole...

If you're talking about that fool who's first name rhymes with the Dutch word for monkey, you didn't pack for him. You did have to connect his risers though, because he couldn't do it. Who ever let that guy BASE jump anyway. What a tool. If you're talking about some other Dutch guy, I can only agree. Nobody should let the Dutch jump. Canadians, on the other hand...

Is somebody else using Jimmy Halliday's account and posting under his name? I mean, I don't think the gay references are very appropriate, but other than that he's pretty funny and not saying anything I particularly disagree with. Reminds me of that guy who posted his video on a MySpace website, of all places. That was pretty funny too. Elitist you say? Yeah, definitely. Hypocritical? Probably as well. But at least two of us are having a laugh!

Wow, that made me cringe. You're doing reason such an enormous disservice that if you'd be sitting next to me I'd give you a gentle smack in the head... There is an enormous difference. Reason says: "assuming X is true, and assuming deductive logic, then we can conclude that Y is true.". I've read both the Koran and the Bible. As far as I know, the word "assumption" does not appear in either. We are encouraged to take the axioms (as far as they deserve that word) on face value and never question them. Science, on the other hand, encourages us to question our axioms, and will greatly welcome anybody who succesfully challenges one (as history has proven (yes, there are exceptions, but on the whole science welcomes change)). What does religion do to those that challenge them? Burn 'm at the stake, that's what. There is a thing that hasn't been succesfully been pointed out in this thread, so I'll give it another shot (knowing that I too will fail with too few words). People are overlooking the enormous success that science and reason has had over the past centuries. We are living longer, we are curing diseases, we are traveling faster than ever, and we have landed on the moon. Even those that disagree that a moon-landing is a miracle will surely agree that it is a good thing that we have cures for what once were deadly diseases. Cue people that will tell me how spirituality and homeopathy can cure too. That's fine, but you best believe that if I get cancer I'm walking into the nearest Western hospital. If spirituality and homeopathy was so good, why is life expectancy still lower in Buddhist Asia? The same with people who blame science for many of the world's problems (that's you David Ehrenfeld). I don't see them going back to nature living a neanderthaler life. That is not to say that science doesn't have many undesirable side-effects, but on the whole it has shaped an environment that I much prefer over the one that existed a decade, a century and a millenium ago. But I digress. This whole discussion is rather pointless for two reasons. Reason truly is different than religion. You can't compare them. Reason invites challenge, religion requires blind dogma. Give it another few hundred years and we'll look back on this century with embarrassement. Gay people can marry, condoms are free on the streets, and early abortion is encouraged. It's a simple matter of extrapolating history... Lastly, to all religious people who take themselves more serious than they would take their FSM believing neighbour; you are all retarded.

I'm not offended by Maggot's posts. They're just so poorly written that I don't have the energy to read them. As a result, his posts only clutter the forum. Having heard about the real-life Maggot from people who's opinion I trust, I have reason to believe that he might actually be quite funny. It's my type of comedy. Unfortunately, right now it's like listening to Chris Rock and Dane Cook sucking each other off on stage. It might be funny, but with their mouths full all we can hear is mumbling. So we throw tomatoes and hope the next act is better. An attitude to be truly proud of...

I don't think many of us are offended. We're mostly just saddened.

Why did you all assume that what Tom posted was the way it happens? Why did none of you question anything he had to say, there were NO QUESTIONS!!!! Just because someone sounds like they know what they are talking about, does not mean they do...... (no disrespect TA, just trying to make a point).... Has it occured to you that possibly there were no questions because Tom's explanation made sense to them? Rather than slacking others for their alledged ignorance, you would do better to invest that energy into proving their ignorance. E.g., show them what kind of questions they could have asked. I guess that goes for me to, rather than slacking the slacker, I should be drinking beers while listening to Dire Straits. Come on Mac, it's time you come visit in Vancouver so we can flick something. Stop breaking your head over the dying noobs around you. As Ray Losli said: "...we're just paying back an overdue loan, who cares about a beginner here and there."

BASE WIKI list of nuggets

There is more to BASE than death. Although I do not have any numbers, I have a feeling that unexperienced beginners are more susceptible to injury than experienced jumpers are. The kind of errors that lead to injury often come from misjudgement and overconfidence. The very thing beginners have plenty off. The kind of errors that lead to death are, in many cases, on an entirely different scale. The gung-ho beginner jumper says: "There's a slight cross-wind and the landing area is tight, but I think I'll be able to make it.". These are the type of jumps that don't necessarily kill, but do bad things to femurs and vertebraes. The experienced jumper says: "Fuck it, I'm going home. I got cold beer in the fridge, and there's always tomorrow." This is ironic, since the experienced jumper probably has a better chance of coming out in one piece. On the other hand, it is the experienced jumper that will say: "I can do a wingsuit gainer and still out-track this ledge", something you won't hear from a beginner. Yes, there are exceptions to either category; but my point is that death is typically a hindsight thing whereas injury is more often than not plain-and-simple foresight. I suspect that there will always be more experienced people on the fatality list, while the unwritten injury list continues to have all the beginners on it.

Ah, I see. I misinterpreted the smiley as if to say: "How dare they ask somebody without membership to take care of their own rescue? Everybody deserves a rescue..." whereas you meant: "It was quite obvious there was no way he would be able to climb down by himself." Sorry. Thanks for the clarification! I get a little hung-up on this (no pun intended), since so many people take rescue and health-care for granted.

I'm not quite sure I understand the '' icon. It seems like a perfectly valid thing to ask if you don't have membership. If a person hasn't paid his dues, any help is a free bonus. Be grateful if you get it, and quiet if you don't. Especially in a sport like BASE jumping, where an insurance system doesn't work well to begin with...

Care to share what happened?

First of all; that is what BASE is about to you. Others may have other opinions. Secondly; you don't think that Jason and Jean and all the others don't feel terrible right now? You don't think they wish they could go back in time and change things? Thirdly; I'll be truthful and take personal responsibility if that is what you want: "Dear BASE community, I'm really sorry I didn't hop on a plane to fly to West Virgiana to stop Brian from jumping. I failed you all." Fourth; You're a fucking asshole Mac. You remind me of that guy that gives speeches at funerals to remind everybody what a cunt the deceased was. It doesn't help anybody, but at least you feel better, don't you? You need to relax. Go pack your canopy, go make a jump, and give up on this idealized picture you have of BASE. It never existed anywhere but in our heads...

Mac, sometimes it can be useful to ask yourself what you're trying to achieve when you post something. And in case you already know it yourself, enlighten us and tell us what the goal of this discussion is? Do you think the people involved haven't gone through similar thought exercises already? Given most of them knew Brian personally, I'm sure they'll go through much more rigorous and contemplative discussions than anything you can come up with. You're not helping Mac...