5.samadhi

........................................................................ Transport Canada fobs off most of the responsibility for regulating skydiving on CSPA. As long as CSP keeps the fataltity rate low, TC stays out of the business of directly regulating skydiving in Canada. Most years, TC is satisfied with reviewing the books of Canadian DZs. Canadian Air Regulations require that all skydives - in Canada - be done in accordance with guidelines written by CSPA, CAPS or a similar organization. CSPA's Basic Safety Recommendations are almost a photo-copy of USPA BSR's, including requiring freshly-inspected reserves, etc.. CAPS BSRs are almost photo-copies of CSPA and USPA BSRs. Many Canadian DZs are also affiliated with USPA. Many Canadian DZOs enforce higher safety standards than CSPA, USPA, etc. For example, Pitt Meadows banned round reserves a decade ago, because thier airport is bordered by the Frazer River. No skydiver has ever landed in the Frazer River and they intend to maintain that record. I cannot imagine a Canadian DZO allowing anyone to jump without a (certified, recently repacked, etc.) reserve). what about jumping out of a private plane with a base rig on after a food/fuel drop out in the middle of nowhere (ie above the arctic circle)? Would that violate any regulations???

Better analogy: drunk driving laws. As an over-21 adult, I can drink myself blotto and pass out face-down and drown in the kiddie pool in my back yard. That's on me - alcohol is legal, and I have the autonomy to do whatever damage I want to my body, ego, and psyche with it. The second I put my drunk ass behind the wheel is when the state really starts to care about me, because at that point, I have a much higher likelihood of hurting other people in addition to hurting myself. The guy who has no business being on the Velo 90 is basically driving drunk all the time. Of course there are a lot of times when he'll be able to adequately control the parachute so that he doesn't put himself or anyone else at risk. But, like the drunk driver who gets away with it several times, it doesn't mean that he has adequate control over that canopy. The DZO and the other jumpers on the dropzone have an interest in having "sober drivers" on the dropzone. They have an interest in having people under canopies that they are adequately able to control given their experience and skill level. Just like not all drunk drivers run into telephone poles and hurt only themselves, not all Velo jockeys pound themselves into the ground and only hurt themselves. So, if Velo jockey can find a plane and a landing area where there's no one else around, I'd say that's more like the drunk passing out in the kiddie pool and drowning. But dropzones aren't like that. And even if they were, just as I'd hope that my family and friends might have a chat with me about my drinking problem if I were regularly passing out in kiddie pools, I also like the fact that other skydivers will have a chat with Velo jockey, even if he's figured out a way to skydive with 100% clear airspace all the time. Because seeing people you care about hurt themselves still sucks, even if it's their "free will." I understand and agree with your reasoning. If the skydiver does not have full cognitive control of her faculties (ie like a drunk person) then canopy selection should be governed by local authority/friend who does have full cognitive faculties. Canopy selection ought to be governed by local authority (DZO/S&TA) anyways when canopy selection by the individual differs from the safety norm at the level of the local dropzone. So, in this case the jumper with 200 jumps wouldn't be jumping the velocity 96 if the DZO/S&TA were doing their job despite owning one from a recent purchase. Basically, I think it boils down to a two-fold point 1) that people do not have a responsibility to make people make responsible decisions...2)people have a responsibility not to deprive other people of their personal autonomy and the ability to make their own decisions

name a difference, if you want to know specifically the argument in political philosophy is an argument against any drug laws pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical (recreational). Any 'collateral damage' you could describe (ie crackhead goes crazy and murders innocent person) is outweighed by the preservation of autonomy in the individual. If you weight one aspect heavily enough any consequence is acceptable.

Well if the skydiver is a child then I would not sell gear they are not ready to use because they have not formed cognitive impulse control. However, skydivers are generally not children (at least in the USA). The parachute is inert fabric that does not impose a 'will' on the skydiver to use it immediately. The 'will' imposed on the fabric is the skydiver's own and is brought about by a decision ("yes I will hook this canopy to this rig and pack/jump it"). The DZO/S&TA is not fabric and has a 'will' and can impose her will on the skydiver if the skydiver makes a poor choice on their dropzone. Why not keep the personal autonomy (ie the ability to make a decision between the purchase of gear and the use of gear) in tact and if concerned remain vigilant on the local level at your own dropzone to care for inexperienced skydivers (in case they should make an unsafe decision)? By circumventing the skydiver's right to make their own decision you have handicapped the person and the society in general. Incidentally, I have developed this view from years of political philosophy (drug law) study - NOT skydiving! It extends quite elegantly to skydiving gear purchase though as you can see.

^ haha yes my cashier check scam didn't work and I'm pissed and decided to formulate a theory of personal autonomy and intelligently reply to an internet thread. Anyways I dont think I'm trading in my good old sabre 1 for a Velocity. Discovered the sabre 10 years ago and am not letting go anytime soon Why do you think this - just because it seems right to you, Bill? I am curious about your reason. You say 'save a life' but what is life worth without personal autonomy?

I disagree that you should be researching people's experience levels when selling gear. Its their business what they do with the canopy when they get it. Depriving people of personal autonomy is never a good thing. Treat people like imbeciles and they will be imbeciles. Plus you lose a sale. But you clearly saved yourself some hassle because it is obviously a scam.

We can just add "tucking chin to chest before reserve deployment" as a step after "unzipping wingsuit to have access to emergency handles" in case of needing to enact emergency procedures. We can keep adding steps to the emergency procedures for quite some time.

Can you explain why? Sparky perhaps the complications added for an environment where they could be utilized pose problems in an environment where they could not be utilized (low deployments). I was thinking more along the lines of jumping into a campsite (ie Baffin). Its great you could do that in Canada (that was one of the main countries I was interested in!) Thanks for the info so far.

No idea. Sparky thanks for posting then haha!

^ ruggedly handsome with a touch of metrosexuality

out of simple curiosity what countries legally allow single parachute systems to be jumped from airplanes.

^ ego?

^ I agree I'd like to take it one step further and try to make anybody that mentions a wingsuit DZ ban socially uncomfortable by whatever means necessary.

Manta 288 10 jumps Sabre 170 30 jumps Sabre 150 50 jumps Sabre 120 50 jumps Fox 225 10 jumps Sabre2 150 50 jumps Cobalt 120 50 jumps Sabre 135 50 jumps

if the cypres expires before the reserve repack date does the container need to be opened up and the cypres removed before the scheduled repack? Or can we leave the cypres in until the scheduled repack?

hey ian, what is your opinion in landing across the pattern if everybody is down already (say you hung in brakes from a deployment of 4k'). I hate following the downwinders at one particular DZ I go to so I typically pull higher when they are on the load so I can hang in brakes and land the way I think is safer. It helps that their WL is almost twice mine so they get down fast compared to me! by the way, I agree setting the pattern (with an agreement) in the plane before the load goes up is the best way.

its a few every summer at most small dropzones that I've jumped at. A few meaning injuries like spinal compression, ankle fracture, tib/fib fracture, wrist fracture, etc. I bet most arent publicized because of 'safety records' for the DZ and also embarassment by the people that biffed in that hard.

Needs more mention of brands to be sensational.

to get back to jumping there, I suspect a period for mourning after the recent fatality coupled with an effort from local WS base jumpers to establish guidelines that if followed would help prevent future fatalities. Guidelines like minimum jump recommendations, etc. WINGSUIT BAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree its your parachute jump, nobody should force you to land downwind in 15mph if you dont want to. What a stupid little trend going on when the ones landing with 2:1 HP canopies are forcing everybody else on the load to downwind it. You can safely land against the pattern if you pull high enough and hang in brakes while everybody lands. Or you can kill somebody if you do it without common sense!!!!

Or on 10K boxes. no Jeb has already said that he never wanted to do what Gary did, he always wanted to land at "wingsuit terminal"

whatcha talkin bout willis??? I am just disagreeing with NWflyer and pointing out her lack of reasonable thinking because it is so fun to disagree with somebody who will no matter what you say disagree with you.

its a hard lesson to learn - that you're not special and you might make a mistake - especially for such ego-driven people that often are attracted to fringe sports like skydiving. Your posts (PJ) strike me as being very ego-driven. Anybody who has spent even a season hanging out on a dropzone on the weekends has seen many like you (they all have done something 'extreme' in the past which qualifies them from an exemption from mistakes). I learned my lesson and I only had to rest for 4 weeks after my injury...I'm a lucky one

Your logic sounds remarkably like that of the teenagers who think they can't possibly get pregnant because they only had sex one time. Its pretty accepted in risk theory that exposure time to risk is a relevant factor to consider when making decisions. Would you, using your example, say a teenager that engages in sexual intercourse one time carries as much risk as a teenager that engages in sexual intercourse ten times? Of course you can go in without being able to get your handle in time on the FIRST JUMP you do with the reserve under your zipper. But pointing that out is just being pedantic

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard (and it apparently never occurred to that DZO that there's a reason we don't jump capewells any more). It may be easy to unzip a jumpsuit under routine conditions, but it may be very difficult or even impossible under a malfunction that might be flinging the jumper around like a rag doll or one that is spinning so rapidly that it's tough to even reach up with an arm. Beyond that, cutaway and reserve handles are EMERGENCY handles. The vast majority of the time, they are needed at the worst possible moment - the bottom of the skydive when the jumper is under the greatest amount of stress and has the least amount of time to take action. It makes ZERO sense to intentionally create a condition under which those handles are more difficult or time-consuming to use. well in this particular case the wingsuit will probably only be jumped by the pilot testing it out before it is brought into a base environment...the 'lifespan' of the suit will be shortlived as a skydiving suit (there are MUCH better options for flocking than apache haha!). i suppose there's something to be said for not hacking up your suit to have easy access to handles if it will never be flown out of a plane again after that month?