DaVinciflies

+1 on confusing. Does this mean that there will be two types of Crossfire etc, with possible variances in material and manufacturing quality? They need to sort their messaging out online because it really is not clear. Is the Daedalus range purely NZ Aerosports?

In that case, how do you explain the following: Their Facebook page says: and http://www.nzaerosports.com/ has the following on it:

Thank you for all you have done and tried to do, Bill. This is list of actions taken would shame most people in the sport - including myself.

It's all been talked about ad nauseam. He is not doing anything new. It's just a waste of time. I'm just suggesting that he take action of some kind instead of talking about it if he really is that bothered by the status quo.

If you're really that interested in doing something - then do something. If you're not going to take action then this is just more hot air, and there's plenty of that in these forums. FWIW I do like your idea of having to qualify to move up to a different canopy - I think it would force the hot shots to work hard to be able to fly the "trophy canopies".

So you actually died twice? To die once might be misfortune, to die twice looks like carelessness.

That seems like a sensible idea. That ways the people who like to collect boy scout badges such as the SCR have something to go for and the rest of us can just get on with enjoying jumping.

I can understand it from a quality control perspective. They only want people jumping their canopies in the configurations they have tested. Imagine if someone asked for an orange Vectran lineset for their Spectre and subsequently had a fatally hard opening. The result would be bad press for PD. An extreme example, I know, but I believe that this policy of inflexibility when it comes to jumpers experimenting with their gear is in keeping with PD's policy of thoroughly testing it's products before release.

How the heck did that happen? Uncocked PC? Bridle snagged (eg half-hitched round a flap)? There are ways.

I quoted your entire post, and used an example from a different slice of life to illustrate how useless your "statistic" was. If I have misunderstood the meaning of your post "most fatalities happen to D-license holders.. " please feel free to elaborate. Otherwise, my point stands that your "fact" means nothing.

I can't get my head around this. Do you not just pivot around the 3-ring?

Most jumps are done by D-licence holders, particularly jumps on HP canopies, so that's not a useful statistic. It's a bit like "marriage is the single biggest cause of divorce".

I suggest that you learn how to do one. Who the hell taught you to skydive without covering PLFs? That's borderline negligent IMO. Not know how to do a PLF is not a "badge of honour". It is a technique that could quite possibly save you from serious injury. The article you quote does NOT negate the need for PLFs, it merely argues that there are times when it may not be the best option.

Not everyone does now.

That's the one. Thanks!

I believe there is information out there from Bill Booth based on the work he did before including rare-earth magnets in his rigs. I don't have a link though, sorry.

Right on! There's a lot of horseshit talked about linestows. Anyone who jumps a stowless bag must be a witch!

All very fair comments. I was trying to introduce some middle ground between the status quo and enforced regulation. It seems my thoughts didn't get much traction. Thanks for your eloquent input/comments.

Common sense should be applied in the same way that S&TAs apply common sense for other safety issues. The DZO should reasonably be expected to know what is being done on his DZ, if not directly then through his safety staff. After all, it is his business and the buck stops with him. Certainly I agree that training will help generally, but in this thread I was addressing what to do with those people for whom training will not help, because they won't listen. I offered up an alternative to a USPA solution, ie. a DZ-by-DZ enforcement solution. If the DZ down the road accepts the "fast learner" then DZO #1 can't do a thing about it. But at least the impending negative publicity is not at his place of business. Just because you can stop people going somewhere else to do something dangerous, doesn't mean you should not try to improve things at your own DZ. That's just weak and burying your head in the sand. This is really my point. Do you think that just making a new rule or BSR at USPA level will change this? I do not. Absolutely.

Actually, I wasn't referring to why the DZO did not pass the jumper's info on to his neighbours. I was meaning we need to understand why he did not lay down the law if the jumper was in over his head.

What you described doesn't happen often enough or consistently enough to be of any value. Now we're getting somewhere. WHY doesn't it happen enough? If we can't understand that then no number of toothless USPA BSRs will make any difference.

But having 200 jumps is the lesser of the two, so by implication the USPA recommends at least 200 jumps to jump with a camera.

Except this is a very OLD joke. A version I heard in the UK: Her: Kiss me where it smells Him: You mean Grimsby?

So, the DZOs have the power to do something but choose not to. They clearly (with some exceptions) do not see a problem big enough to warrant more restrictions. As the USPA exists, at least in part, to represent the interests of the DZOs, why should they introduce regulations which the DZOs themselves deem unnecessary? No, the discussion is about reducing all open canopy related incidents, not just collisions. No, the particular post of mine that you jumped all over was directly relating to canopy collisions.

That is certainly true. And yes, this thread is about fast downsizing. However, the specific post of mine that Dave leapt all over was in specific reference to canopy collisions (a topic which was introduced into this thread by another poster).