cpoxon

Members
  • Content

    3,660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Gear

  • Main Canopy Size
    84
  • Main Canopy Other
    Katana 107
  • Reserve Canopy Size
    135
  • Reserve Canopy Other
    Smart 120
  • AAD
    Cypres 2

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Chatteris
  • License
    D
  • License Number
    11665
  • Licensing Organization
    BPA
  • Number of Jumps
    4700
  • Tunnel Hours
    70
  • Years in Sport
    21
  • First Choice Discipline
    Wing Suit Flying
  • First Choice Discipline Jump Total
    213
  • Second Choice Discipline
    BASE Jumping
  • Second Choice Discipline Jump Total
    217

Ratings and Rigging

  • AFF
    Instructor
  • Tandem
    Instructor
  • Pro Rating
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Nice one! But wouldn't this be better in GitHub or some other repository?
  2. cpoxon

    Cilliers Trial UK.

    Yes. I wonder whether a parole board would automatically consider this or whether it would have to come from a victim (who would be asked to contribute to a parole hearing). Or could the Association speak on the behalf of participants top Perhaps: https://www.gov.uk/getting-parole/parole-board-hearing says, But you'd have to be married to him, have a life-insurance policy and for him to have racked up debts again to be at risk? I guess the rationale would be if he's capable of it in one situation, he's capable of it in others, but I would argue (having done his time, subject to evaluation) it is unlikely that the public at large would be at risk.
  3. cpoxon

    Cilliers Trial UK.

    Yes. I wonder whether a parole board would automatically consider this or whether it would have to come from a victim (who would be asked to contribute to a parole hearing).
  4. cpoxon

    Cilliers Trial UK.

    I'm not sure about the license thing. Technically you're absolutely correct, but the reality is that we ask people to prove their capability despite having a valid license if they've been out of the sport for a while before they get in the air on their own... That implies that a licence does indeed have an expiration or can be revoked if capability can't be shown, doesn't it? The only thing the Operations Manual says is, It can't be revoked; a CI might not let you jump but that doesn't mean the licence is revoked. It is at the CI's discretion to chose to go above and beyond the specifications of the Operations Manual and require that someone undergo revision if they feel it necessary for someone to jump at their dropzone, but that's not to say that another CI might not be so stringent (although I'd hope not) and I would imagine that overseas the scrutiny would be more lax. If there was such a revocation it would imply that there would be a reversal of the process; we don't require people to reapply for their licences. All that would be required in order not to raise the suspicions of an instructor would be to be able to satisfactorily talk the talk, claim that logbooks had been lost in house fire (not too far from the truth with Cilliers) and say jumps had been made recently (perhaps overseas making it harder to verify). Given what this guy has done, I can't imagine he'd be averse to telling a few fibs. We seem to be getting wound up in minutiae.
  5. cpoxon

    Cilliers Trial UK.

    I think it would reinforce the perception amongst the great unwashed that skydiving is an incredibly dangerous activity, and so it could be argued to have damaged the sport. Although it would be unlikely to change the minds of those so prejudiced anyway. Yep. To those too stupid to not read past the headlines and see that it was an evil action that caused the problem here, but I don't think you are ever going to persuade people who are that dumb. Besides, she survived a double (induced) malfunction; how dangerous can it be? Is there such a thing? Interest and bookings always increase after such events, don't they?
  6. cpoxon

    Cilliers Trial UK.

    We seem to be going round in circles here. A licence is a Certificate of Proficiency and can not be revoked. The Articles of Association state, but as I very much doubt he is a current member Council would be unable to do anything until he reapplied for membership (at which time he would have served his time, albeit remaining on licence for the rest of his life). There have been bans in the past, in relation to fixed-object jumping fatalities but they turned out not to be lifetime (I'm confused as to whether that was the intention or not), but there were threats of lifetime bans if BPA Members were found to be BASE jumping afterwards. The BPA Operations Manual later changed to state that Fixed Object jumping did not come within the provisions of the Operations Manual in order to distance itself. So here's an interesting question; has it actually been prejudicial to the Association? Would people think less of the sport and the association because of the actions of a criminal? Or do they think it is the act of a psychopath who could have used a number of methods to carry out his crime? If he'd tampered with the brakes of the car would it be prejudicial to the manufacturer of the car? I suspect it is all moot as I too doubt he would ever visit a dropzone ever again.
  7. cpoxon

    Cilliers Trial UK.

    Not that I can [url ”http://www.bpa.org.uk/forms/download/46/pdf"]see[/url]. Again, what would you be looking for? A blanket ban against all criminals? Just ones with unspent convictions/on licence? For specific crimes such as murder? For extreme edge cases such as when carried out using parachute equipment? Besides, the insurers and / or policy will probably change over the next 18 years.
  8. cpoxon

    Cilliers Trial UK.

    Membership and licence are two different things. A licence is a certificate of proficiency and can't be revoked once earned. The card you are talking about to be endorsed refers to the membership card. I get rather uncomfortable when people (especially lawyers) talk about "shoehorning" things! I realise that this is very close to home and that makes it all the more abhorent, but I think you'd be surprised at the number of ex-cons amongst our numbers. Picking on this very particular crime and the method in which it is carried out could perversely lead to us being accused of discrimination, as ridiculous as that sounds.
  9. cpoxon

    Cilliers Trial UK.

    I don't think we have any power to remove a licence (unlike a rating), only membership. And licences have no validity period either (unlike a rating). I very much doubt he's a current member anyway so we have no power over him until he tries to rejoin the association. But then (Devil's Advocate) he will have served his time, paid his debt to society, no? I note that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 says that custodial sentences of over 4 years are never spent, but that is primarily to do with employment purposed.
  10. cpoxon

    Cilliers Trial UK.

    15th of June. Sentenced to life (minimum of 18 years)
  11. cpoxon

    Cilliers Trial UK.

    15th of June.
  12. cpoxon

    Cilliers Trial UK.

    [URL "http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44209421"]Sex, lies and payday loans: The parachute murder plot[/url]
  13. cpoxon

    Cilliers Trial UK.

    Found guilty
  14. I'd be interested to know which BPA dropzone you jumped at and when. Section 12 of the BPA's Operation Manual states,
  15. cpoxon

    Icarus World - press release

    Received this from Bill Legard,