Zenister 0 #151 July 10, 2003 QuoteQuoteFreedom is more important than safety I think this is the "root cause" of why we disagree. If this is what you believe, I again ask you, where was the uproar when the "A" license pull altitude BSR was changed? I find it interesting that no one is willing to answer that question. we honestly i wasnt around then, and there should have been a good bit more study done before making changes, as i've said already just because you used an incomplete process once and made a good rule doesnt mean its a good standard practice.. also, pull altitudes are not quite so personal as canopy choices and landing styles. I'd imagine that those whos enjoyment of skydiving was primarily defined by how low they could pull have moved on to something less restrictive and more condusive to their particular 'fix'. ie BASE after mandatory rules were emplaced to control thier personal level of risk in a manner that they found to restrictive. i'd also be willing to bet there are a significantly larger number of people who care more about being told what canopies and how they must fly them than there were people who were concerned with an extra 500ft of freefall. they really are very seperate issues, with much different charateristics, no matter how much you wish to tie them together. just as one example: changing pull atltitudes would never 'force' anyone to buy new gear.. Safe practices only allows you to enjoy your freedoms, excessive restriction removes that freedoms complete until you comply. we would arguablly be 'safer' if we strip searched every individual and went thru all cargo before boarding a commercial aircraft. I'm certainly not willing to make that concession for the illusion that allows the average to sleep better at night knowing "something is being done" no matter how inefficient or ineffective____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #152 July 10, 2003 so 2 incidents (that you heard about) out of how many skydives you directly observed being made? and that ratio makes your 'greatest fear' being taken out by another skydiver? there are FAR more things that are likely to injure you skydiving than someone else... somepeoples greatest fear is being bitten by a black widow, even though they arent native to the area they live in, which makes they chances of it happening rather low...but whatever you want to worry about is up to you.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #153 July 10, 2003 Quote I do think this would be better left up to the individual DZ's than to have a BSR (although I think BSR's are only recommendations anyway???). That way, those of us who choose can go to the DZ's that are known for higher safety standards, and those who want more "freedom" can go elsewhere... be very carefull about equating excessive 'regulation' with 'higher safety standards' since they are not the same thing. but i actually agree very strongly with this, It should be left up to the individual DZs. Supply and demand will then determine which policy best fits the 'temper' of the skydiving community. Some DZ's may have a higher (or lower) acceptable risk level than others, and the jumpers would gravitate towards the one that best fit thier personalities. I've said all along that the people making wingloading decisions should be the ones 'on the ground' who are actually observing the jumpers at thier DZ, not by an overreaching authority from the 'adminosphere'____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #154 July 10, 2003 Quotethey really are very seperate issues, with much different charateristics, no matter how much you wish to tie them together. just as one example: changing pull atltitudes would never 'force' anyone to buy new gear.. Not 15 years ago."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #155 July 10, 2003 Quote so 2 incidents (that you heard about) out of how many skydives you directly observed being made? Actually, those two incidents directly involved people I would like to consider personal friends. One of them, I did consider a very good personal friend. RIP, Paul. Quoteand that ratio makes your 'greatest fear' being taken out by another skydiver? Yes, 2 people relatively close to me going in for the similar reasons in six monthes time gives me great fear of it happeneing again. I hope next time it's someone I don't know. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #156 July 10, 2003 Quotejust wondering if you'd looked at the numbers to get a rough idea of how small the chance you or another spectator has of being injured by another skydiver is?? Here is one"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #157 July 10, 2003 cool ONE! out of how many potential opportunities? care to guess what the odds are now?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mayday 0 #158 July 10, 2003 Quotecool ONE! out of how many potential opportunities? care to guess what the odds are now? Since you seem to know the exact numbers, why don't you share them with all of us? peace out... May ;-) "saving the world before bedtime..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #159 July 10, 2003 Do you think the guy standing there minding his own cares what the odds were? Would you?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mayday 0 #160 July 10, 2003 QuoteFreedom is more important than safety. There is a fine line between having too much freedom and not enough freedom, and probably no perfect answer that will suit everyone. With not enough freedom we are of course repressed, but with too much freedom there would be anarchy and the world would be a very nasty place. peace out... May ;-) "saving the world before bedtime..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #161 July 10, 2003 nope the individual any event (no matter how uncommon or improbable) happens to cares nothing for the odds. All they know is it happened to them however the if the odds of such events are not of statistical significance (likely to happen with regularity if not addressed) they shouldn’t be used to justify regulation that affects everyone. i dont have exact numbers either (i wish we did it would make ALOT of this discussion much easier) but it fairly to compare the small number of collisions that are reported with the frequency with which they could occur (every load with more than one jumper) and tell there isnt a glaring issue here, no matter how profile the recent fatality might be..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mayday 0 #162 July 10, 2003 Quotenope the individual any event (no matter how uncommon or improbable) happens to cares nothing for the odds. All they know is it happened to them however the if the odds of such events are not of statistical significance (likely to happen with regularity if not addressed) they shouldn’t be used to justify regulation that affects everyone. i dont have exact numbers either (i wish we did it would make ALOT of this discussion much easier) but it fairly to compare the small number of collisions that are reported with the frequency with which they could occur (every load with more than one jumper) and tell there isnt a glaring issue here, no matter how profile the recent fatality might be.. So basically you have NO IDEA what the actual numbers are, yet because this situation has never affected you personally you are absolutely certain that this problem is not significant enough to be addressed??? If your main concern is that you don't want to have to buy a new canopy, fine - stick to that argument because it is a legitimate one. But the way you are defending this point without any facts to back it up (I have seen quite a few "close calls" and even a couple of injuries because of people on canopies they weren't ready for) makes me think that you must be one of these people who has never realized that your actions can hurt your fellow skydivers? Nothing personal dude, but that kind of attitude scares me at the dropzone. peace out... May ;-) "saving the world before bedtime..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #163 July 10, 2003 nope i have a good idea that the numbers are VERY low based on the number of reported injuries and and number of potential occurrences. admittedly (and unfortunately) there is alot of inference. However creating regulation to protect everyone from even the most remote possibility is impossible. Far better to address the issues that are verifiable risks to everyone everyday. you could die of a meteor strike in the next few min, (and its possible that someone here knows someone who has) but the chances of it happening are far to low to justify the effort and expense of a defensive shield to prevent it.. i'll ignore the rest of your rant since its incorrect and irrelevant to the discussion..much better if you dont assume my intent or my ability since you dont know me at all.. edit: since i shouldnt try to do 5 things at once...silly spelling...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mayday 0 #164 July 10, 2003 Quotenope i have a good idea that the numbers are VERY low based on the number of reported injuries and and number of potential occurrences So basically you have NO IDEA what the numbers are (most injuries are NOT reported). And where exactly are you getting a number of "potential occurrences"??? (and if you actually have a number for potential occurrences, please share that one with us as well) I personally don't think a wingloading BSR will do anything to correct this problem anyway. This is something the dropzone owners should be doing something about. It is their property and they should be grounding anyone who is doing anything to make the situation more dangerous for other jumpers. But I think you are horribly misguided in thinking the possibility of getting hurt by another skydiver is so small, and I sincerely hope you don't have to find out the hard way. peace out... May ;-) "saving the world before bedtime..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #165 July 10, 2003 again no i have a very good idea, i just dont know the exact number number of potential occurrences is easy. Every skydive made with more than one person in the air at the same time. wanna bet that number is pretty high in comparison? i'm sorry if simple inference (an admitely inaccurate method) appears as "horribly misguided" to you...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mayday 0 #166 July 10, 2003 Quoteagain no i have a very good idea, i just dont know the exact number number of potential occurrences is easy. Every skydive made with more than one person in the air at the same time. wanna bet that number is pretty high in comparison? Well you still don't have a number because you would need the number of injuries that resulted from these potential occurrences, and since injuries are not generally reported (they should be so we can have some sort of statistics), there is no way for you (or I) to know. So if you don't see this problem at your dropzone, then that is good for you, but obviously from the other posts on here it is a problem at other dropzones. I don't see anyone stating that we should have super-strict rules, just some guidelines - mostly to keep new jumpers from hurting themselves, so I really don't understand why you are reacting so negatively about it. It appears that you have 200+ jumps and should be D-qualified, so it shouldn't have much affect on you anyway (except that you might lose a few less friends in the long run). peace out... May ;-) "saving the world before bedtime..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #167 July 10, 2003 I will not argue with you on this. I will PM you and give you my phone # if you want to discuss. Performance is determined by your perspective. Nothing more nothing less. Speed, turn rate, etc. are determined by specific size, material, geometry, etc. Performance is comparative to your perspective and point of reference. Blues Hook. Thanks for your inputs. J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #168 July 11, 2003 I think some people need to have a think about if they really want to DEBATE this important issue or if they want to piss people off. Do we want an informed debate that can help finding ways forward on this issue or do we just enjoy winning a pissing contest i.e. arguing for arguing sake?--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #169 July 11, 2003 both. i think it is far to important an issue to allow invalid arguments to stand as justification. access to better education programs are certainly nessesary. Mandatory education is not, at least in the US where the freedom to be as stupid, or radically different from the norm is an important right.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #170 July 11, 2003 Quote think it is far to important an issue to allow invalid arguments to stand as justification The problem is that you call points made by people with lots and lots of experience "invalid" - but yours are "valid". You might want to think about this - do you want to convince people or piss them off? Quotein the US where the freedom to be as stupid, or radically different from the norm is an important right A few people would be in disagreement with that - even in the US. It should not be a right if it does affect other people in a negative way or even endangers them... drink drivers are stupid and we do not tolerate them (I hope). The key to a good discussion is to try to understand the others persons viewpoint and show them a little respect. If you don't do that you just have a "fight" - and thats really not the purpose of the forum. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,439 #171 July 12, 2003 QuoteThe key to a good discussion is to try to understand the others persons viewpoint I think this is key. How can you explain your own viewpoint if you don't address the countering points in the other person's in a way that makes sense to them? And how can you say things in a way that makes sense to them if you don't acknowledge that they have a reason for thinking the way they do? Quoteshow them a little respect If you can just acknowledge that someone has a reason for thinking a particular way, and acknowledge that it might be valid, then you've shown respect. This is also key. If two people have their fingers in their ears, repeating their (to them) key points, then not a whole lot of progress is made. Showing respect to someone doesn't mean that you defer to their judgement, or think that they're superior to you. It just means that you're willing to try to understand their insights before countering them. Thanks for posting this. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eugeneskydiver 0 #172 July 14, 2003 Time for the young guy to step in. First of all, I'd just like to say I don't think this is a horrible idea, but I did vote no. I've never seen anyone seriously injured, but have seen a few skips and bounced myself once. (our dz has soft dirt) The part about taking a CANOPY CONTROL COURSE is the best idea ever. I wish I tookone and I will as soon as I can. More importantly we all need to get over our egos and tell each other when we see dangerous things. I learned how to swoop the hard way but a few times fellow jumpers told me they were scared shitless watching me swoop. I learned a lot from them. (try to count how many times you've said, "that guy is gonna hurt himself" and not told him. Not to mention did everyone consider the wind. If your dz is windy all the time, having a lightly loaded canopy might be a little unreasonable. Gile Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #173 July 14, 2003 QuoteThe larger canopy creates a lot more drag, from the area of the canopy, frontal area and surface drag, and the longer lines are a source of drag. Hook A canopy in straight forward flight flies at the speed at which its lift is equal to the suspended weight. Its speed is more about lift coefficient and wing loading than about drag (unless it has a really poor lift/drag ratio).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skydiver40TN 0 #174 July 15, 2003 One thing this would do is to force people like me with 350+ jumps and an A license to get a B, C, or D even though I've never seen the need to upgrade. Or is this, like at boogies, where the equivelent of the license is accepted?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #175 July 15, 2003 >One thing this would do is to force people like me with 350+ jumps > and an A license to get a B, C, or D even though I've never seen > the need to upgrade. Or just get canopy training, or prove to an S+TA that you are competent under that canopy. Then the restrictions don't apply to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)