nathaniel

Oh I agree that people dying in skydiving accidents is bad. I'm questioning whether this new-BSR approach will do anything about it. What I've gotten so far is * it will work but I can't explain how, trust me I know better than you * regulation works because it educates people and education hasn't worked alone * nothing else has worked so this will if anything will * we have loads of other regs so what the heck Well, I trust people better when they share with me. When they share their knowledge with me. And -- please do not construe this as a broad insult -- I wonder whether knowledge that can't be shared is knowledge at all. I don't consider broad assumptions as knowledge until I can appreciate what supports them. If this means I won't understand till I have more jumps, then don't bother responding for I won't understand. I think #2 is the best of the lot, tho I'm even starting to wonder about it after I read through kallend's links. The links provide alternative solutions too, like providing incentives to not screwup, instead of disincentives to screwups. Sounds goody-goody at first, but who cares what it sounds like, I care whether it works. Is it ethical to enact new regs when we don't know how we came up with them or what they'll do? Does the seriousness of the problem make it more or less ethical? Is there a real problem, or is the problem strictly in our perceptions? Is there a real problem we should expect to solve, or is the problem we are "solving" not the real one? As you were wondering, I have seen with my own eyes people seriously injured in skydiving accidents, and skydiving friends of mine have perished. Under small canopies. I could not stop them, though I wish I could have. Our hope should not displace our reason. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

If possible maybe the guys with more experience could buddy up with more than one student. Or maybe give it a little bit of hierarchy and let the older guys mentor the middle-aged guys, and have the middle-aged guys mentor the young guys, and have the young guys mentor the new guys...and when they ask a question you don't know the answer to or if they don't listen, ask your way up the tree. This is starting to sound awfully m/paternalistic, but I think it wouldn't have to be unbearable. Who says economics doesn't have anything to do with skydiving! Supply and demand, how do we reconcile them? I dont think we should force anyone to be a mentor or a mentee...and those that choose to participate could set the terms of their relationship on their own. A meat market wasn't originally part of the idea.. but hey, sometimes things end up in ways you don't expect. I suppose we'd have to try to find out for sure, eh? I think we could discourage the Avon^Wevil capitalistic parts of it by encouraging the dispensation of gifts such as beer and pack jobs from mentees to mentors, or otherwise playing up the social aspects of the relationship. Maybe the USPA could offer incentives to professional and non-professional experienced skydivers to mentor the new guys... maybe special awards like we see in the back of Parachutist when some number your mentees have all made a certain accomplishment. I think the number of people that consider Roger Nelson a mentor is testament to scale of his greatness (edit: present tense). Maybe a new stratum of instructor licensing that confers something instructors want...or enables them to ask for top dollar from DZ's and gives DZ's something to advertise... Or the USPA could give incentives to participating DZs and let the DZOs figure out the details. I don't know what you would want, you do! Tell me, then tell the USPA =) nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

They might not go at all if we regulate them poorly -- they might quit the USPA, or the sport altogether if we screw up too much / too often. Would this proposed BSR make people leave the USPA in droves? Probably not. Would the wing of your favorite Otter fail if we took out just one rivet? You missed the point again...the straw man is exit separation, not propensity to assume risks in general. Casting doubt on whether people would give up on exit separation in response to the proposed BSR does not cast doubt on my point--unless of course if you can cast doubt on all the other forms of risk taking that skydivers might take in response to the proposed BSR as well. I'm not predicting which risks they will take, I am predicting that they will take additional risks. Neither am I predicting they will jump with helium balloons tied to their knees and elbows with vectran strings, or with fishtanks, or try land their wingsuits, etc. Just that they will have more room in their risk budget that they may choose to allocate, or not, at their discretion--not yours or mine. Let's try again with the dead people. How do you get from dead people to CanuckInUSA's / DJan's proposed numbers instead of from dead people to my *nonsense* proposed numbers? aside: I screwed up and attributed them to Ron in a previous post... How about my second set of "nonsense" proposed numbers 1.0 if < 1000 jumps 1.1 if < 1100 jumps 1.2 if < 1200 jumps 1.3 if < 1300 jumps 1.4 if < 1400 jumps They're more subtle than my first set, don't you think? Why don't we ban hook turns among low timers instead? How about requiring radios + landing coaching for all jumpers with < n * 100 jumps? Why doesn't the proposed BSR talk elliptical vs square vs round? Why don't we look for something other than jump #'s as a byword for canopy skill? Tying the proposal to USPA licenses seems slightly more rational to me than inventing another metric for experience. By enumerating these proposals I'm not saying I would or would not support them; I'm just wondering what makes one idea better or worse to you than another. If /this proposed wingload BSR means fewer deaths/ is an axiom to you, say so and let us move on instead of butting heads. To me that statement is a hypothesis. Since I can think of arguments both for and against it, I'm not convinced it's true. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

imo diversity is good when people can respect their differences. The USPA already does this with coaches and instructors. I don't think we should roll this back...I think there are good ways it could be expanded without new BSRs. We have the best higher education systems in the world in the US and I think it might be a consequence of the fact that we have relatively little legislative interference with the subjects taught. But I'm not really sure about this whole tangent and I'm not sure I'm that much interested in the study of education.... nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

People who are educated may be more risk averse. or they may make better assessments about risk and underestimate their actual risks less often. That's not an argument for regulation anyway, it's an argument for education, and I am calling for education too. I agree that insufficient exit separation is not a popular risk among skydivers, and it's irrelevant to this discussion... straw-man alert. The point is not that risk-deprived skydivers will do everything in their power at every opportunity to find a new way to die--although it may seem that way when people do stupid things. The point is that people have a risk budget and that by taking certain goods off the market you aren't changing the budget. It's a simple ecnonomy. People undertake risk for pleasure. But risk isnt free...at some point the probabilities kick in and the pleasure goes away. I contend that we will never corner the market on risk. You can change the manifestation of risk-taking but you can't prevent it, and changing the manifestation incurs penalties. I agree that the basis of my claim isn't in skydiving, but that doesn't make it any less relevant. The basis is a descriptive approach to understanding human nature ie economics. Not Keynes or Greenspan, just basic risk + probability analysis. That gives me an idea, tho...has already been proposed by others but not to the degree I have in mind--or maybe I just wasn't paying attention. Instead of relying on some obscure numerology to decide what is safe, how about strengthening the coaching system into a buddy system? Pair good jumpers with new ones, and emphasize long-term skydiving relationships. I know people do this on their own already to some extent already, esp in context of swooping... this approach is just screaming for USPA sponsorship. They told you? They didn't tell me. Sarcastic on the surface, but seriously I think this is core to our disagreement. How do you get from dead people to new BSRs? I reiterate that the burden of proof is on the proposal, not on the status quo. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Yes. I have argued this point separately. The USPA has very limited regulatory authority to begin with, people's risk preferences notwithstanding. Regulations that are not affirmed by the consent of the membership will be flouted. I don't pull before 3000 b/c it's in the SIM that I have to, I do b/c I think it's a good idea. I usually pull at 4000... Or by doing hook turns, BASE jumps, by not tracking away from the end of an n-way, or by jumping a small canopy, or by doing CRW without instruction. I have seen this among the same people I see at 1.3 HP and 200 jumps, and I see it as part of human nature outside of skydiving as well. This is not to say that all potential expressions of a certain level of risk would be equivalent to individual jumpers. It's more of a statement about averages. I think people willing to take up to a certain amount of risk will take up to that amount of risk as they see fit. Diminishing a person's ability to take particular risks may therefore have unpredictable results. I disagree on that one. There's several ways to build arguments: logical deduction, empirical study, etc. I'm trying to present a logical counter-argument to this proposed BSR. I don't have enough numbers for a compelling statistical analysis... that two events are correlated does not necessarily imply they are causally related, or that they are causally related in the way that we expect. How do you know? nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

One difference between those numbers and these numbers is that we already have those numbers but these numbers are new. As long as we are making up numbers, I propose 1.0 < 10000 jumps 1.1 < 20000 jumps 1.2 < 30000 jumps 1.3 < 40000 jumps 1.4 < 50000 jumps I guarantee to you these numbers are better than Ron's in that they will result in fewer skydiving accidents, if only b/c people give up skydiving for badminton* or something. nathaniel * http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/archive/0123-common-sports-injuries.htm My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I think the point got lost... If they don't hurt themselves with a small canopy they are still at higher risk of hurting themselves otherwise....so the net effect of canopy regulation may well be nil in terms of fatality rate...just trading one type of incident for another. I think it's not a wholistic solution to just fiddle with the WL numbers and hope it turns out OK. Like whack-a-mole, you regulate one set of behaviors and the risk-loving jumper inside finds a new way to express itself. You're allergic to hay. You're standing in a hay field and you have watery eyes. You start sneezing. Do you conclude that you would not be sneezing if you had only a handkerchief to dry your eyes? He likes to push the edge. He's a low timer and he's jumping a small canopy. He dies in a skydiving accident. Why do you conclude that he would not have died if he wasn't jumping a small canopy? Once they see the WL BSR in action people will just wise up about unnecessary risks? Of course not. We should eliminate from consideration anything that does not help, and we should consider only those things that we can show will help. I'd rather do nothing than make mistakes. I think this BSR has lost sight of the forest for the trees. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

lol, there's even a section on landing out: Deuteronomy 23: 24 If you enter your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket. 25 If you enter your neighbor's grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to his standing grain. they should post this at hinckley * do not pack grapes into your container * if your main gets caught in the corn, you may use your hands to extract it, but do not use your hook knife on the field corn it's the Lord's Word! nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

have you noticed the proposed bsr would not affect people with high jump numbers a ha nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

what we need is some kind of air traffic control...maybe based on spotlights or a modified VASI system nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

education w/o hard regulation. a pinch over 1.0, 88 jumps, over 1.1 when I put all my weights on. Would this proposed regulation mean I need special training to belly-fly with weights? But I don't need special training to do head-down without? I understand and share the desire to increase safety, but I'm not buying into the argument that decreased WL directly translates to fewer or less severe accidents. Less severe accidents of a particular type OK, but it doesn't matter to me whether a jumper hurts him/herself one way vs another--I don't think that hook-turn injuries are less desirable than other types of injuries I think they all suck equally. Has it occurred to any of the proponents that people jumping at higher WL might tend to do more crazy sh!t in general? That forcing WL decisions on people maybe isn't taking into account all factors that determine injury / fatality rate? What-if scenario to get a feel for your stance on regulation: What if we instituted hard WL regulation and as a result no-one with less than 500 jumps hurt his/herself doing a hook turn, but one year later the total injury and fatality rates for persons < 500 jumps was the same as before the WL rule -- other types of accidents became more prevalent among low-timers. Would you conclude that WL regulation is inappropriate? What if in our fantasy world WL regulation was then repealed, and the injury/fatality rates for low-timers still stayed the same. Would this be proof that the temporary WL regulation was hogwash? I think that reflex regulations and wing loading are both symptoms of greater problems. I could be persuaded that WL regulation is worthwhile, but it will take more than blanket "it'll reduce the injury rate" statements. WL regulation has cost, and to make me think it's worthwhile I need explanations not promises. I concede that many (most!) of the people here have far more skydiving experience than me, but that only reinforces my belief that we can do better than "we have a hunch it will do good". Road to hell and all. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

sounds to me like he's lucky his arm is still attached, if it is. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

And another question, has the fatality rate decreased as a result of the minimum pull altitude, or have people just found new ways to seriously injure / kill themselves? like Mr. Dave, honestly curious. I don't know the numbers nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I think thats slightly off... I think that the proposal to limit WL reduces the severity of a mishap assuming people's behavior under the WL rule is the same as it is today. I'm not ready to make that assumption...I am not convinced risk-loving people wouldn't find new ways to express their risk preferences if wing-loading is taken away from them. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I can imagine a market for low-cost mounted or standalone radar aimed fully automatic bb guns, and a lot of dead birds. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I think I'm with Erica on this one, screw^Wskip the tent and go for corn, way far out in the corn far away from the tents with potentially me in them nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

wherever you go in life, always remember one thing. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

look everywhere! I found a great deal on practically unused gear listed on a DZ's website. A lot of them have classified sections with gear that doesn't seem to make it to the major online listing engines like dz.com and the enclave. There's a whole bunch of lazy skydivers selling gear that either never go online or never bother to list their stuff in classified services (even free ones =), so take a weekend road trip and visit the bulletin boards of nearby and not-so-nearby DZs. Talk to the dzo's and riggers too, lots of sellers are too lazy to even bother to make posters. The more work you do finding a rig the better your price will be

piercings good...just keep them neatly tucked away at pull time I think it's like perfume it shouldn't make you stand out from 25 ft away. But when you're up close it's a nice touch My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I had a great economics professor; she insisted that car manufacturers are not encouraging safe driving since they put things like airbags and seat belts in cars that make it easier to survive a crash. drivers willing to take a certain amount of personal-risk now can drive more crazy-like at the same personal-risk level. How will influencing a jumper's canopy choice affect the jumper's risk preferences? could bigger canopies provide a greater illusion of safety (in SUV-style) and make jumpers more risk-loving? btw I wasn't serious about excommunication...that would lead to holy wars. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Amen. I can guarantee to you the more regulations we have the less injury there will be because with more regulation there will be fewer people in the sport. IMO the USPA would be foolish to squander the freedom and trust it has earned for its members by micromanaging them...I for one get enough of that between weekends. I distinguish different points from this debate 1. some people take more risks than others my opinion: error #0, no error. we all stand out from the mainstream b/c we participate in a risky sport 2. some people don't respect others' choices about risk levels my opinion: no one should be forced to accept a higher risk level than s/he prefers. so for instance we should keep designated swoop alleys or separate landing areas to let people interested in high risk landings do so with minimal impact to those not so inclined. Likewise we should not impose a rarified whuffo attitude on people willing to accept more risk than us 3. people sometimes misjudge the risks they take--some people consistently misjudge the risks they take my opinion: the right way to address this is education, and it is unfortunate that some people won't learn before they hurt themselves. but there are steps we can take to improve risk awareness, like encouraging coaching, safety day, etc. While the USPA is still popular it could try excommunicating members that take too many dumb risks...but I don't think it would be popular for very long if it did so. 4. regulation is not the USPA's trump card my opinion: Heavy-handed regulation is the last alternative and is seldom justified, imo. keep in mind that the USPA is a very democratic organization in the sense that its regulatory power is directly linked to its popularity. it becomes irrelevant if it makes too many unpopular rules as people and dzs start dropping out and forming rival associations or just leaving the sport. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

That's what I'm thinking...write a poem and change the terms of use such that the poem is attached to all outgoing mails and under copyright you grant users authority to use it for non-commercial purposes only. Then sue for copyright infringement...or something. Anyone know a skydiving lawyer willing to work pro-bono? nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

http://www.liquidgeneration.com/quiz/gangsta_quiz.asp that should do it... nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

had a great day at hinckley today, only one major screwup in my book and walked away unscathed load #2, set for a 3-way sitfly. 10 minute call and I'm just finishing packing from load #1. gear up and hop on the plane...full load squish in. ride to 14k is a little sleepy, forgot my mints in the rush to gear up. cotton mouth all around, not to mention Skydiver (TM) brand Morning-Breath engines cut, door open jumpers away! stand up check pc .. pc ... pc where are you? three-way turned into a two way without me while a tandem videographer checks out my pc. The handle had gotten neatly wedged all the way into the boc pouch, and had I stepped 5 feet in the wrong direction I'd have had only one parachute left. I'm pretty obsessive about handle checks and I'm certain the handle was exposed when I got on the plane...had a pin check on the ground and felt it myself too...must have jammed it in when scooting in for the load... would have sucked to cut the weekend short for a reserve repack, or worse. moral of the story: check your freakin handles! nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?