USPA Safety Day advertisement

[davelepka 4]

Quote

It is done, and done safely, on a regular basis, by those who have the skills and are willing to apply the required diligence. Just like so many other specialty jumps.

Night jumps, swooping, CF, skyboards, wingsuits, and skyballs are all examples.

Yes, those are examples. They are examples of specialty jumps that require additional equipment, training, or other interaction with more qualified jumpers in order to participate in and still remain in the good graces of the DZ. As we all know, anyone can chuck a skyball out of the plane, or bust a 180 on short final, but we're not talking about renegade jumpers here.

The low pass does not require interaction with anyone except the manifestor. We would hope that other jumpers would intervene, and remind jumpers on a low pass of the orientaiton of the jumprun, and the danger of a tailstrike, but that's just a 'hope', and in my opinion, not good enough.

Even then, much like the Lodi incident, the reminders of other jumpers does not guarantee the correct performance of the jumper.

I disagree with your assertion that making any climbing low pass, even one done by the request of a qualified jumper and that proceeded without incident, would leave the DZ open to an accusation of carelessness in a case not involving a climbing low pass. My primary reason for this is that there would be no record of such a pass, and no way for it to be introduced into a lawsuit.

Without an injury, damage to the aircraft, or a lawsuit as the result, the nature of the pass would not be of note, and quite frankly very hard to prove.

I do think that all jumpers should be properly trained to recognize and handle exiting from different aircraft attitudes. I think it's important enough that it should be an item on the A license proficiency card, but I stand behind my position that the SOP for all passes should be a full cut and level off, and that the USPA wouldn't be wrong to back that position.

[danielcroft 2]

Quote

Without an injury, damage to the aircraft, or a lawsuit as the result, the nature of the pass would not be of note, and quite frankly very hard to prove.

I think the point was that even one instance being put up on youtube on a tandem video can show that a DZ or pilot has a history of breaking the rules. It doesn't have to be on the jump in question.

I know I'm a noob here guys so I'm going to shut up and read but for the record, I feel like the wording was too heavy handed wrt the pilot's performance and not enough on the jumper's responsibility to also be safe.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

even one instance being put up on youtube on a tandem video can show that a DZ or pilot has a history of breaking the rules.

Good point, but I still think you're reaching.

In order for that to happen, somebody with an understanding of a climbing low pass would have to be scouring Youtube on the part of the plantiff, and even then they would have to spot the climbing low pass, and make note of it even if the lawsuit was not related to a climbing low pass.

Let's remember that this would be a successful climbing low pass, so spotting it on Youtube would be very tricky. Keep in mind that you can make a poised exit from many low tail AC on a climbing low pass without incident, you just can't jump up.

So you mean to tell me that the plantiff is going to hire a skydiving expert to review Youtube videos, and that person is going to spot a low tail on a successful low pass exit?

Even then, I still maintain that would not be the basis for a label of carelessness on the part of the DZ as a whole. Just like the plantiff could hire an expert witness, so could the defense. It wouldn't be hard to explain the hazzards of the climbing low pass, and that they only exist for inexperienced jumpers. The position of the USPA would be shown as a 'safe bet', in place to ensure that low time jumpers don't slip through the cracks and end up on a climbing low pass.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

So yes, it could well be that this wording was intentional as a way to chop off Bill's head and thus remove his apostasy from American skydiving.

I don't know man. I thought that my theory, that is was a backhanded way to set the standard for all jumpruns to be flown with a full cut and level off, was a little far fetched, but yours is a downright accusation of a conspiracy against Bill Dause.

Dave, I did not make a "downright accusation of a conspiracy against Bill Dause."

I observed that deliberate malicious intent on the part of USPA to damage Bill Dause is one possible explanatioin for its action - the other being stupidity.

I assigned equal probabillity to either possibility - and to yours, for that matter, which to me falls into the "stupidity" category by virtue of its backhandedness.

Your "simplest solution" supposition may indeed be the actual answer, which of course means that it falls within the "stupidity" explanation rather than "malice."

But until it is investigated, anything anybody says about USPA's motives and "thinking" in putting up its stupid ad is speculation.

That is why I said it might be interesting to investigate it, though I didn't demand that either; investigations use up time and effort that could be better used on moving forward instead of looking back.



d5533
base44
ccs37

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[danielcroft 2]

Quote

Good point, but I still think you're reaching.

...

That's exactly the subject being discussed at another DZ regarding tandem CRW etc in another thread (I do have better things to do, honest! ).

Sorry, I really will be quiet now.

[DiverMike 5]

The easiest way to prove that a climbing low pass was done would be to put the jump pilot on the stand and ask the question. Every pilot I know isn't going to risk his ticket and lie about not performing a low pass. It isn't violating an FAR, so it is easy to admit to.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[riggerpaul 1]

Your argument sounds a little bit like "don't ask, don't tell".

We can do what we want in the face of the rules (de facto or otherwise, recommendations, whatever), since we won't get caught.

You are suggesting that the rules are mostly for appearance, and not actually something to be followed. That's a horrible precedent to set.

I much prefer that we be up front about this, and clearly instruct how to handle the situations we deal with.

Failure to do so puts USPA themselves in the cross hairs for failing to take appropriate actions against the "violators".

If it is as dangerous as some say it is, put it in the BSRs. If USPA cannot get the support to do that, maybe it is not as dangerous as some are claiming.

If you cannnot get get support for a BSR change, don't take gratuitous swipes that can do legal damage to people who should not have to protect themselves from the organization to which they belong.

As for your assertion that it would be hard to spot, there are often cameras watching from the ground. How hard is it to hear that there was no cut? Not too hard.

[riggerpaul 1]

I just though of another option to address this "problem".

Place license restrictions on the privilege to exit a climbing low tail side door aircraft.

We have ample precedent with night and water jumps.

We could easily say that a climbing exit from low tail side door aircraft requires a "C" or even a "D" license.

Put questions about this on the license exams to ensure that people who might be doing this will understand the requirements.

Wouldn't this ensure that the people who do these exits are amply trained?

If not, then you pretty much admitting that our training and licensing systems are failing to do their jobs.

Fix what is broken.

Too many people drive drunk, but Prohibition (you know, the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution) was not the answer.

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

I just though of another option to address this "problem".

Place license restrictions on the privilege to exit a climbing low tail side door aircraft.

We have ample precedent with night and water jumps.

We could easily say that a climbing exit from low tail side door aircraft requires a "C" or even a "D" license.

Put questions about this on the license exams to ensure that people who might be doing this will understand the requirements.

Wouldn't this ensure that the people who do these exits are amply trained?

If not, then you pretty much admitting that our training and licensing systems are failing to do their jobs.

Fix what is broken.

Too many people drive drunk, but Prohibition (you know, the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution) was not the answer.

Complex solutions to a problem that is much more simply fixed - have the plane in level flight when the green light is on.

The pilot is responsible for the safety of the plane and its occupants. Allowing an exit in an attitude that increases the likelihood of a tailstrike is not good practice.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Complex solutions to a problem that is much more simply fixed - have the plane in level flight when the green light is on.

The pilot is responsible for the safety of the plane and its occupants. Allowing an exit in an attitude that increases the likelihood of a tailstrike is not good practice.

And once a jumper leaves the aircraft, s/he's no longer an occupant, is s/he?

But I digress.

The simplest solution of all is for jumpers to man up and take personal responsibility for not hitting the tail when they exit.

Jumpers not smart enough or aware enough or competent enough to not hit the tail when they jump shouldn't jump.

Blue Sky, Black Death means something, you know?

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Jumpers not smart enough or aware enough or competent enough to not hit the tail when they jump shouldn't jump.

Maybe, but we both know that they jump anyway.

With that in mind...

Quote

The simplest solution of all is for jumpers to man up and take personal responsibility for not hitting the tail when they exit.

That is not the simplest solution. It might be the most idealistic solution, but not the simplest. That solution relies on EVERY jumper who exits on a climbing low pass to perform their exit correctly.

If you make it the SOP to provide a cut and level off, then all you have to rely on is the highly trained, highly experienced commercial turbine pilot in the front seat. All he has to do is pull a lever back, push the yoke forward and wait.

I have far more faith in the pilot's ability to do that, than I have for EVERY jumper performing correctly on EVERY exit.

I'm all for training new jumpers about different attitudes and airspeeds on jumprun, to include practicing the techniques needed to safely exit on a climbing pass. I'm also realistic about those jumpers ability (or willingness) to absorb, retain, and recall that information at the crucial moments.

Jumpers are currently trained on how to handle two canopies out, right? I would love to see how many out of, say, 20 guys with between 50 and 100 jumps could exlpain in full the procedures for all the different varieties of a two-out scenario. They were taught the material, and it could certainly be life saving information if you found yourself with a two-out, but I would be very surprised if 5 out of 20 could explain the procedured with the same accuracy and level of detail with which they were taught.

Yes, give people the oppertunity to learn and be responsible for themselves. When it comes to aircraft safety (for the sake of the remaining jumpers on board) pass the buck to the most highly trained person in the plane, el pilito.

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Quote

Complex solutions to a problem that is much more simply fixed - have the plane in level flight when the green light is on.

The pilot is responsible for the safety of the plane and its occupants. Allowing an exit in an attitude that increases the likelihood of a tailstrike is not good practice.

And once a jumper leaves the aircraft, s/he's no longer an occupant, is s/he?

So no-one else was in the plane after this jumper exited? I wonder why it was still climbing, then.

The pilot is STILL responsible for the plane and any remaining occupants.

Quote

But I digress.

It seems to be a habit of yours.

Quote

The simplest solution of all is for jumpers to man up and take personal responsibility for not hitting the tail when they exit.

Jumpers not smart enough or aware enough or competent enough to not hit the tail when they jump shouldn't jump.

Blue Sky, Black Death means something, you know?

The skydiver is not responsible for the plane and its remaining occupants. The PIC is responsible for the plane and its remaining occupants and should fly the plane in a way that minimizes the possibility of a tailstrike.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[topdocker 0]

Quote

The skydiver is not responsible for the plane and its remaining occupants. The PIC is responsible for the plane and its remaining occupants and should fly the plane in a way that minimizes the possibility of a tailstrike.

Every skydiver on every load has a responsibility to keep the aircraft as safe as possible for those still onboard, including the pilot. This means your gear is maintained so that when you climb out (on any type of exit) gear is not extracted possibly damaging the a/c. It means you minimize the amount of weight you shift to the tail as the plane slows down. Etc, etc.

Kallend, you make it sound as if the skydivers can get in the plane and do whatever they want, because its only the pilots job to keep the aircraft safe. This is a patently poor way of thinking, and I hope does not truly reflect your attitude towards aircraft safety.

One question no one is addressing here: if you put more restrictions on doing low passes, the net effect is they will be avoided by dropzone management. Do we want to work towards making the low pass go the way of the baton pass?

top

Jump more, post less!

[riggerpaul 1]

Just to reinforce topdocker.

Every time we let a poorly qualified jumper on the aircraft, we are putting the rest of the people in jeopardy.

If we didn't teach them to exit safely, what makes us think that they won't pitch that pilot chute over the tail, or make some other equally stupid mistake that kills us all?

You have no right to endanger me by allowing that person on the airplane in the first place.

Fix more problems - require only tailgate aircraft. Oh wait, there are the weight an balance issues. I know, we'll put in pilot-controlled turnstyles to control the exits.

Recently, I came to the realization that we are trying to fix this problem absolutely ass backwards.

We should make demonstrating a safe climbing low tail side door exit technique an "A" license requirement.

That way, we know we have to take special care of students, and we know anybody else on the plane has what it takes to do things properly.

We will know that we have prepared the jumper for the type of aircraft he is so likely to encounter.

The very best time to teach this skill would be right at the end of the primary training, AFF, IAD, whatever. The jumper will never be more receptive to the message and the learning than at that moment. He will have enough exposure to not be in a panic, yet we can still make it very clear that this is a special survival skill and that he needs to have this skill. Sure, it has a bit more danger associated with it, but it is as dangerous if not more so to not have the skill.

Even if USPA bans the climbing exit with a BSR, we should still be making this an "A" license requirement. Because accepting the notion that there are inadequately trained jumpers on the aircraft is just plain stupid. Even without a climbing exit, I don't want that person between me and the door when the pilot tells me to get out NOW. Because that's when the dummy will go into the tail and kill us all.

And, yes, I am saying that if USPA wants to ban it, they should use a BSR. That makes it clear, and nobody is going to think that it is okay to slip a quick one past anybody. The BSR is the correct mechanism for such a statement. It is why we have BSRs in the first place. If there is insufficient support for a BSR, then stop trying to say there is.

If this is such a problem, fine, take the steps you like to help deal with it. Use the band-aid of banning the climbing exit if you like.

But, at the same time, admit that we are not training the jumper adequately, and fix that problem too.

Because it is just plain stupid to be allowing poorly qualified jumpers to jeopardize the rest of us.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

Jumpers not smart enough or aware enough or competent enough to not hit the tail when they jump shouldn't jump.

Maybe, but we both know that they jump anyway.

With that in mind...

Quote

The simplest solution of all is for jumpers to man up and take personal responsibility for not hitting the tail when they exit.

That is not the simplest solution. It might be the most idealistic solution, but not the simplest. That solution relies on EVERY jumper who exits on a climbing low pass to perform their exit correctly.

Imagine that; expecting EVERY jumper to be personally responsible for his/her own safety from the beginning of the jump until the end.

Quote

If you make it the SOP to provide a cut and level off, then all you have to rely on is the highly trained, highly experienced commercial turbine pilot in the front seat.

Right, every jump pilot is highly trained and experienced.

Quote

All he has to do is pull a lever back, push the yoke forward and wait.

Sigh, this is where it gets... complicated, not simple. As soon as the pilot changes the flight profile, s/he changes the turnaround time, which then ripples through the whole operation. You know, why is it that pilots do climbing passes in the first place? To keep costs and cycle times lower, so they can keep jump prices lower, so they can...you know, stay in business.

Quote

I have far more faith in the pilot's ability to do that, than I have for EVERY jumper performing correctly on EVERY exit.

Yo Dave, we're not talking about every jumper on every exit; we're talking about the occasional jumper on the occasional load who gets out low when every other jumper is going high.

Quote

I'm all for training new jumpers about different attitudes and airspeeds on jumprun, to include practicing the techniques needed to safely exit on a climbing pass. I'm also realistic about those jumpers ability (or willingness) to absorb, retain, and recall that information at the crucial moments.

No... you're not. How hard is it for one jumper to absorb, retain and recall - before s/he jumps - to not hit the tail when they exit?

And if we have people jumping out of airplanes who are too stupid to remember the aerial equivalent of "look both ways before you cross a street," then we have a much bigger problem with our training system than we do with climbing exits -- especially when the rest of the peeps on the plane are there to remind him or her to not hit the tail (this is known as enlightened self interest).

Quote

Jumpers are currently trained on how to handle two canopies out, right? I would love to see how many out of, say, 20 guys with between 50 and 100 jumps could exlpain in full the procedures for all the different varieties of a two-out scenario. They were taught the material, and it could certainly be life saving information if you found yourself with a two-out, but I would be very surprised if 5 out of 20 could explain the procedured with the same accuracy and level of detail with which they were taught.

And this has what to do with remembering not to hit the tail when you jump?

Quote

Yes, give people the oppertunity to learn and be responsible for themselves. When it comes to aircraft safety (for the sake of the remaining jumpers on board) pass the buck to the most highly trained person in the plane, el pilito.

Dave, I aprreciate your respect for jump pilots, but this is laughably and provably incorrect; there are many loads on which there are far more highly experienced pilots sitting in the back than there are at the controls.

Which leads us full circle again: the simplest solution is for every jumper who exits on a low pass to take personal responsibility to perform their exit correctly.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Complex solutions to a problem that is much more simply fixed - have the plane in level flight when the green light is on.

The pilot is responsible for the safety of the plane and its occupants. Allowing an exit in an attitude that increases the likelihood of a tailstrike is not good practice.

And once a jumper leaves the aircraft, s/he's no longer an occupant, is s/he?

So no-one else was in the plane after this jumper exited? I wonder why it was still climbing, then.

The pilot is STILL responsible for the plane and any remaining occupants.

And... so is the exiting jumper. The jumper's personal responsibility includes not just his or her own safety but that of his or her fellow jumpers. Remembering to not hit the tail when you jump (or dump your reserve or someone else's reserve into it) is part of enlightened self-interest, upon which most parachuting ethics are based - not centralized diktats.

Quote

But I digress.


It seems to be a habit of yours.

No... it's not. Digression on this thread continues to be the province of those who advocate centralized diktats over personal responsibility.

Quote

The simplest solution of all is for jumpers to man up and take personal responsibility for not hitting the tail when they exit.

Jumpers not smart enough or aware enough or competent enough to not hit the tail when they jump shouldn't jump.

Blue Sky, Black Death means something, you know?




The skydiver is not responsible for the plane and its remaining occupants. The PIC is responsible for the plane and its remaining occupants and should fly the plane in a way that minimizes the possibility of a tailstrike.

There you go again, hoping to change the foundation of parachuting by demanding that centralized diktats trump personal responsibility.

Because regardless of the change for which you hope, the bottom line is that each skydiver is in fact personally responsible for the safety of the plane and its remaining occupants, just as much as the pilot, just as much as the other jumpers.

That's because Blue Sky, Black Death does mean something; what we do is beautiful and very dangerous and wherever the Reaper lurks, we must in fact keep an eye out for each other as well as ourselves - which leads us once again back to enlightened self-interest; not only do you save your own life by remembering not to hit the tail on exit, you potentially save the lives of your fellow jumpers and the pilot and the aircraft as well.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Imagine that; expecting EVERY jumper to be personally responsible for his/her own safety from the beginning of the jump until the end.

What a wonderful world it would be...but it's not. Let's face it, the more people you have skydiving, the greater chance you're going to have a dumbo on the plane. Many jumpers today have little interest in the finer points of the sport, and are interested in, for all intensive purposes, a carnival ride. They don't care to spot, study the winds, pack, or do anything but show up, jump, and spend the rest of their time on their Blackberrys.

You continue to reference the way it should be, while I am referencing the way it actually is. It would be nice if every driver on the road took responsibility for themselves, but they don't, and you have conduct yourself accordingly to avoid accidents.

Quote

Right, every jump pilot is highly trained and experienced

Dave, I aprreciate your respect for jump pilots, but this is laughably and provably incorrect; there are many loads on which there are far more highly experienced pilots sitting in the back than there are at the controls.

Yes, every turbine jump pilot is highly trained. In general you need 1000 hours to for the insurance company to sign off on you. On top of that, they all have eraned a commercial certificate, and made the transition into a turbine aircraft. All of this combined equals way more time, effort and training then anything in skydiving.

Come on now, I don't care who is sitting in the back of the plane, I only concerned about the guy at the helm. I jump with an orthopedic surgeon, who I'm sure has for more training than the pilot, but he's not up there performing surgery, so it's of little value. In terms of what people are doing on board, the pilot is clearly the most qualified of the bunch.

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jumpers are currently trained on how to handle two canopies out, right? I would love to see how many out of, say, 20 guys with between 50 and 100 jumps could exlpain in full the procedures for all the different varieties of a two-out scenario. They were taught the material, and it could certainly be life saving information if you found yourself with a two-out, but I would be very surprised if 5 out of 20 could explain the procedured with the same accuracy and level of detail with which they were taught.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And this has what to do with remembering not to hit the tail when you jump?

It called an example. Handling a two out is something jumpers are taught, but since they rarely use that training, they quickly forget the details. Even if you train people to exit properly, you are at risk for them forgetting that as well.

I've clearly stated several times that I am all for jumper training and personal responsibility. However, I cannot understand the resistance to the idea that making a level pass the SOP. It eliminates the need to rely on that training, and subtracts the possibility of a tailstrike (aside from outragously bad behavoir).

You expect jumpers to pull both handles in the case of a malfunction, but you give them as RSL anyway. Why? Because even though you want them to follow through with their EPs, there is a device that can meet them halfway and help them out. So you do both, train them properly and equip. them with the RSL.

Same for the AAD. You teach them to save themselves, but in the case they fail, you also send them up with an AAD.

Same for the low pass. You teach them to exit properly, and in case they fail, you raise the tail anyway.

Quote

Sigh, this is where it gets... complicated, not simple. As soon as the pilot changes the flight profile, s/he changes the turnaround time, which then ripples through the whole operation. You know, why is it that pilots do climbing passes in the first place? To keep costs and cycle times lower, so they can keep jump prices lower, so they can...you know, stay in business

No way. No way in hell.

The time difference between a climbing pass and a full cut is negligable. Thirty seconds, tops, from cut to throttle up.

It's a low pass. The pilot can keep climbing until right on top of the spot. Cut power, level off, and throw the light. An exit or three, add power, and get on with the climb.

No pilot, and no DZ for that matter, loads, fuels, taxis, or climbs with enough precision that anyone is going to notice an extra 30 seconds. Even then, liek you said it's a business and when costs go up (like for an extra 30 seconds), prices go up. If the consumer wants the product, they will pay the price. If they don't want to shell out the extra buck, then you, me, and everyone else on the thread has nothing to talk about because nobody will be getting out low.

[Andy9o8 2]

"Personal responsibility" is when, for example, a jumper decides whether or not to down-size his canopy, or to swoop, or to use an AAd. For the most part, it affects only him. A tail strike can bring down the plane, with all souls on board. That makes it everybody's business. Everything else is just happy horseshit.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

Imagine that; expecting EVERY jumper to be personally responsible for his/her own safety from the beginning of the jump until the end.

What a wonderful world it would be...but it's not. Let's face it, the more people you have skydiving, the greater chance you're going to have a dumbo on the plane. Many jumpers today have little interest in the finer points of the sport, and are interested in, for all intensive purposes, a carnival ride. They don't care to spot, study the winds, pack, or do anything but show up, jump, and spend the rest of their time on their Blackberrys.

So you're also hoping to change the foundation of parachuting from freedom and personal responsibility into a nanny state with no freedom, no thinking, no personal responsibility?

Quote

Quote

Right, every jump pilot is highly trained and experienced

Dave, I aprreciate your respect for jump pilots, but this is laughably and provably incorrect; there are many loads on which there are far more highly experienced pilots sitting in the back than there are at the controls.

Yes, every turbine jump pilot is highly trained. In general you need 1000 hours to for the insurance company to sign off on you. On top of that, they all have eraned a commercial certificate, and made the transition into a turbine aircraft. All of this combined equals way more time, effort and training then anything in skydiving.

Then why is it that we've had more fatal turbine crashes in the past five years than we have fatal tail strikes? (Not to mention the body count; as I recall, each fatal turbine crash killed a bunch, while each of the tail strikes killed just the idiot who didn't miss the tail when he jumped.)

Quote

Come on now, I don't care who is sitting in the back of the plane, I only concerned about the guy at the helm. I jump with an orthopedic surgeon, who I'm sure has for more training than the pilot, but he's not up there performing surgery, so it's of little value. In terms of what people are doing on board, the pilot is clearly the most qualified of the bunch.

Dave, you digress. I said there are often more experienced pilots sitting in the back than at the controls. I said nothing about the physicists, software engineers, surgeons, et al.

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jumpers are currently trained on how to handle two canopies out, right? I would love to see how many out of, say, 20 guys with between 50 and 100 jumps could exlpain in full the procedures for all the different varieties of a two-out scenario. They were taught the material, and it could certainly be life saving information if you found yourself with a two-out, but I would be very surprised if 5 out of 20 could explain the procedured with the same accuracy and level of detail with which they were taught.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this has what to do with remembering not to hit the tail when you jump?

- - - - - -- - - - - -

It called an example. Handling a two out is something jumpers are taught, but since they rarely use that training, they quickly forget the details.

But they use exit training on every jump so your "example" is bogus.

Quote

I've clearly stated several times that I am all for jumper training and personal responsibility.

Then why do you seek centralized solutions to personal responsibility problems?

Quote

However, I cannot understand the resistance to the idea that making a level pass the SOP. It eliminates the need to rely on that training, and subtracts the possibility of a tailstrike (aside from outragously bad behavoir).

Because such a centralized solution also eliminates the need for personal responsibility and the need to "look before you leap."

Quote

You expect jumpers to pull both handles in the case of a malfunction, but you give them as RSL anyway.

Another bogus "example:" RSLs are not SOP.

Quote

Same for the AAD.

Another bogus "example:" AADs are not SOP.

Quote

Same for the low pass. You teach them to exit properly, and in case they fail, you raise the tail anyway.

RSLs and AADs are not SOP so making level low-level exits SOP is not the same.

***Sigh, this is where it gets... complicated, not simple. As soon as the pilot changes the flight profile, s/he changes the turnaround time, which then ripples through the whole operation. You know, why is it that pilots do climbing passes in the first place? To keep costs and cycle times lower, so they can keep jump prices lower, so they can...you know, stay in business

No way. No way in hell.

The time difference between a climbing pass and a full cut is negligable. Thirty seconds, tops, from cut to throttle up.

Okay, then, if it doesn't matter, then why do drop zones do it?

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[robinheid 0]

Quote

"Personal responsibility" is when, for example, a jumper decides whether or not to down-size his canopy, or to swoop, or to use an AAd. For the most part, it affects only him. A tail strike can bring down the plane, with all souls on board. That makes it everybody's business. Everything else is just happy horseshit.

As I said in post #66:

"...Blue Sky, Black Death does mean something; what we do is beautiful and very dangerous and wherever the Reaper lurks, we must in fact keep an eye out for each other as well as ourselves - which leads us once again back to enlightened self-interest; not only do you save your own life by remembering not to hit the tail on exit, you potentially save the lives of your fellow jumpers and the pilot and the aircraft as well."

And I might add... personal responsibility also extends to the jumpers on the plane reminding the guy about to exit during a climb to not hit the tail.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[Andy9o8 2]

Evasive answer. I stand by my post.

[davelepka 4]

Look brother, I can't do this anymore.

You're full of shit, and anyone reading your posts can clearly see that. I'm not going to spend any more time trying to point out what is glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain.

I'm not talking about your viewpoint on the issue at hand, or mine, the subject of who is correct on that point remains to be seen, but the way you attempt to refute anyone elses viewpoint, and the way you seem not undertand the concept of making a 'comparison' or giving an 'example' makes you a real chore to communicate with.

Good luck with your 'black death' you seem to be so fond of, I'm sure the two of you will be very happy together.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Look brother, I can't do this anymore.

Fair enough. Will you still talk with me?

I have posted that if you want to make this new rule, well, that's fine. I'd like it done with a BSR, but that's another matter.

But, much more central to the discussion as it has evolved, is the question of the USPA recognizing that they cannot in any effective way say that they have any confidence in the jumpers that our current training is producing.

Don't you feel you have the right to expect that the guy between you and the door knows what he is doing?

Don't you think that a USPA license should provide you with some assurance that he does?

Are you happy with the notion that you should reasonably expect that someone who has asked for a low pass would hit the tail?

These things don't make me happy. I don't think we should be satisfied with them.

Again, make the rule change if you want. I'll even stick by it. (Please use the proper channels and get the necessary support.)

But aren't you at all concerned that the way we are training people these days produces jumpers who you cannot reasonably expect to know how not to kill you?

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Evasive answer. I stand by my post.

As I do. I simply reiterated the part of my post #66 which agreed with yours: the safety of the plane is everybody's business who is on the plane - the pilot, the jumpers, the guy doing the climbing-pass exit.

I just think that micromanaging jump runs and exits is categorically not the business of USPA.

So please tell me: what part of my-post-that-agrees-with-yours is "evasive?"

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Look brother, I can't do this anymore.

You're full of shit, and anyone reading your posts can clearly see that.

Oh brother, there you go, digressing again.

Quote

I'm not going to spend any more time trying to point out what is glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain.

True enough, but out of courtesy to you, I haven't pointed out what is glaringly obvious to anyone with a disciplined brain.

Quote

I'm not talking about your viewpoint on the issue at hand, or mine, the subject of who is correct on that point remains to be seen, but the way you attempt to refute anyone elses viewpoint, and the way you seem not undertand the concept of making a 'comparison' or giving an 'example' makes you a real chore to communicate with.

The only viewpoints I refute are those that are invalid.

The only comparisons and/or examples I "seem to not understand" are those that "compare" apples to oranges or are "examples" that do not apply.

Quote

Good luck with your 'black death' you seem to be so fond of, I'm sure the two of you will be very happy together.

Thanks! Good luck with your debate training.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."