Should 270's be outlawed at USPA DZ's

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The overwhelming majority of my jumps were either made without USPA membership, at a group member dropzone (that was fully aware that I was not a USPA member), or with USPA membership at a non-group member dropzone.

OK, so name some big, non-182 DZ's that are huge and successful.

If a group member is willing to take that on their shoulders, they're fucking stupid. If you had an incident and hurt someone, even yourself, what a better case of gross negligence than that. See, at a USPA DZ, we all assume that the other jumoers are also USPA, so if a nonn-USPAer sneaks in then teh DZ's ass is in a hook.

Quote

I'm a member when I have to be...

I'm not touching that one

Quote

It has been my experience that it is not difficult to find a dropzone that will allow non-USPA members to jump. Consequently, I suspect a revoked (individual) membership would have minimal consequences on one's ability to skydive.

Maybe shitholes, but premier DZ's like Perris would turn you away.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

The overwhelming majority of my jumps were either made without USPA membership, at a group member dropzone (that was fully aware that I was not a USPA member), or with USPA membership at a non-group member dropzone.

OK, so name some big, non-182 DZ's that are huge and successful.

If a group member is willing to take that on their shoulders, they're fucking stupid. If you had an incident and hurt someone, even yourself, what a better case of gross negligence than that. See, at a USPA DZ, we all assume that the other jumoers are also USPA, so if a nonn-USPAer sneaks in then teh DZ's ass is in a hook.

Quote

I'm a member when I have to be...

I'm not touching that one

Quote

It has been my experience that it is not difficult to find a dropzone that will allow non-USPA members to jump. Consequently, I suspect a revoked (individual) membership would have minimal consequences on one's ability to skydive.

Maybe shitholes, but premier DZ's like Perris would turn you away.

Let's just say that since I've lived in Florida, I've never felt a need to renew my USPA membership. I've jumped at a few DZs that many would consider premier, without that renewal.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[DJL 235]

Quote

I realize the poll is one of absolutes: Allow hooks or not. So I see your point. But legislation in the US works that way, it's crisis management. If we lost 1 or 2 a year, we can handle that, but when we start losing 6 in 3 months, or whatever t has been, then there is a crisis that needs to be addressed.

Bottom line is that something needs to be addressed.

Good God, you are serious. What you're recommending is a knee-jerk reaction to a specific case and ignoring a system that is already in place. It's exactly the same as the state requiring mandatory sentences for specific crimes instead of letting the legal system take care of it. Heard of S&TA's? That's where to start. If the S&TA is doing this hear no evil - see no evil thing then they need to be canned. At the dropzone in question, ELOY, someone came out and lectured me because I landed 20 degrees off the required landing direction. I was the only person landing at that time.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,991]

>What you're recommending is a knee-jerk reaction to a specific case
>and ignoring a system that is already in place.

I agree that we don't need knee-jerk reactions. But the system we have in place IS NOT WORKING. No amount of heartfelt posts saying "we all need to take responsibility for ourselves!" will stop the next Danny from killing the next Bob. S+TA's don't help - often they are the ones doing the 270's. We need a common rule that can be applied to drop zones so DZO's have better guidance.

>At the dropzone in question, ELOY, someone came out and lectured me
>because I landed 20 degrees off the required landing direction. I was
>the only person landing at that time.

Yep. But up until recently 270's were OK there. They have now been banned at both main landing areas. Personally, I think a USPA rule that separates landing areas is a better idea. That way swoopers can still swoop to their heart's content by the pond or the alternate area, and most jumpers can fly a standard pattern.

[jakee 1,490]

Quote

Make the USPA and / or you DZ aware that you no longer acknowledge the 120 rule and see how many jumps you get in that day.

Because they're afraid of the USPA who might take their membership or because they are afraid of the FAA who could yank ratings and issue hefty fines?

Quote

If the feds decided to make states go back to 55mph speed limits via hiway funding, how many drivers would follow? Your point is void in that we're talking legislation, not willfull violation.

Incorrect analogy. A better one would be "If the legal speed limit was 70 but the local neighborhood watch posted a 55 limit, how many peopel would pay attention to it?"

My point is not void because we are talking about FARs vs BSRs. Legal vs voluntary.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[beowulf 1]

The USPA doesn't have near as much influence as you seem to think. There are DZ's that are not USPA members. So not being a USPA member does not mean the DZ would go bankrupt.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Please. Lawrocket, please pipe in here and tell us the meaningless, worthless nature of waivers and prenups.

I'll say just the opposite - the tremendous value of them (of course, depending on the jurisdiction).

Quote

All it does is shows the intent going in.

Yes. And when the intent is a knowing and intelligent waiver of liability for negligence, then it is pretty compelling in most states.

Quote

If I own a DZ, have the students / up-jumpers sign a waiver and I allow activity that is KNOWINGLY more dangerous than it needs to be

That's not the way it usually works. All you need to do is disclose the risks. This is why the waivers are gonna say that you can be killed, injured, paralyzed, hacked to bits, etc. Even though the risks of skydiving are pretty in-your-face apparent, you gotta disclose them. So, a person can waive liability for negligence so long as the possible consequences of it are disclosed.

Waivers say what is being waived, against whom it is being waived, and what the consequences of the waiver could be.

Now, it doesn't mean that the DZ can't be sued. You can sue anybody for anything anywhere. IT just means that the plaintiff's chance of winning is way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way less.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Simple question, should the USPA outlaw 270's at USPA DZ's?

No, but DZ's should have seperate landing areas or not allow 270's on group loads in the main landing area.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

180's are more dangerous in trafic than a 270.

Most pilots disagree with that statement. How is it a canopy would fall under different rules than a plane?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Does the USPA require that your gear be mantained as per the FAA? I'm thinking, yes, and I don't feel like loking it up, so someone pipe in! Why is it that she you go to a new DZ or your own DZ will do reserve checks? I'm thinking teh USPA also regulates this or enforces teh FAA regulation - same thing.

Not even close to the same thing. The USPA requires that you follow the FAA's rules. That is not the same thing as making a rule that skydivers must follow.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Are you shitting me, losing my USPA would be devastating, which is why I follow rules. It could bankrupt a DZ/DZO.

Losing your USPA would do nothing at many DZ's. I can think of major DZ's in just about every state that do not require USPA membership.

Quote

OK, so name some big, non-182 DZ's that are huge and successful

Parachute Center in California for one. How about one for the pure irony factor...West Ten skydiving whoos owner is on the USPA BOD does not require you to be a USPA member I can also think of a bunch of others that claim to demand USPA memberships, but I have jumped there without for years.

[GravityJunky 0]

Quote

Why do people have this retarded idea that the degree of turn causes a problem or that less than a 270 is "safe"?
180's are more dangerous in traffic than a 270.
The problem is hook turns done improperly in traffic. Period.

True My bad, I was referring to all dangerous maneuvers in crowded air space, not just specifically 270's or even just hooks for that matter!

*My Inner Child is A Fucking Prick Too!
*Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge
*Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie}

[PWScottIV 0]

Quote

Simple question, should the USPA outlaw 270's at USPA DZ's?

No way! But we should definitely ban 180s... Them's dangerous.

Gravity Waits for No One.

[PWScottIV 0]

Quote

Fluffy kittens fart a lot.

So do non-fluffy kittens.

Gravity Waits for No One.

[SkyChimp 0]

away from the main landing patterns would be fine.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!