mjosparky 4 #126 April 9, 2012 Peter, I didn’t say that I agreed with it. But the trend in attitudes seems to that jumpers feel DZ’s should be run the way they want it. They don’t demand this from other they business frequent why would they do it at a DZ? SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #127 April 9, 2012 Sorry Chuck - I was commenting on the topic, not necessarily addressing you personally. Your stats are probably accurate. However, I do recall an incident a few years back in which a jumper was trying to escape from a spinning Cessna. She made it out the door just in time for her AAD to fire & entangle her reserve w/the tail. She likely would have survived, albeit with a low opening, if she didn't have an AAD. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #128 April 9, 2012 Quote>"Voting with your feet" is an empty argument. Would you really continue to jump at a DZ who regularly sent up students with drunk instructors? Who never maintained their jump aircraft? Who used unrated pilots? Would you really say "well, it's not like I can leave, better keep this guy in business?" _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No. However, we're comparing apples & bicycles. If the DZ was so blatantly operating in this manner I can't imagine enough people participating to keep it in business. This has nothing at all to do with allowing me to jump w/out an AAD. Funny you should mention it. My skydiving career was crippled in the mid-80's because I lived on Long Island. At the time there was no student training nearby. I completed my instruction at Albany Skydiving, a four-hour drive from home. (This was before the turbine DZ currently operating at Calverton. The only game in town was a Cessna DZ in Moriches.) After graduation I began showing up. Right away I noticed the pilot drinking beer while flying. I never saw more than one beer, but I also never saw him fly without one. Also, the atmosphere was very closed, something I've never seen anywhere else. New jumpers had to "prove" themselves, much the same way a new fireman must prove himself before being accepted by the others. Things came to a head when I asked for a pin check and was told "Jon, if you're going to jump here you'll have to learn to take care of yourself." I sought advice about this from USPA. I did not identify anybody - just described what happened. Instead of answering me personally they published my letter in the magazine and I was kicked off the DZ "for life." Now I was back to driving 3-4+ hours any time I wanted to jump. Perhaps there are some places where a skydiver might be able to choose between several DZ's close to home, but I'm sure this is not the case for most people. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,059 #129 April 9, 2012 >If the DZ was so blatantly operating in this manner I can't imagine >enough people participating to keep it in business. I agree. People would "vote with their feet." BTW the Long Island skydiving scene wasn't much different than you described when I started in the early 90's. Which meant that I generally made the 2-3 hour drive to the Ranch to jump. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #130 April 11, 2012 Quote>If the DZ was so blatantly operating in this manner I can't imagine >enough people participating to keep it in business. I agree. People would "vote with their feet." BTW the Long Island skydiving scene wasn't much different than you described when I started in the early 90's. Which meant that I generally made the 2-3 hour drive to the Ranch to jump. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ One issue was that I had been accustomed to renting gear. I had a rig but would rent/borrow an altimeter, helmet, etc. I learned that this DZ did not offer gear rental but they helped me out. I jumped there for two months, then stopped coming out because I didn't want to be a burden. Almost a year later I returned with all my stuff only to learn that I'd been banned. Four years later I saw some of these guys at other DZ's. They still wouldn't even look at me, let alone talk to me. J. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #131 April 11, 2012 Quote I believe in the personal responsibility model. not in the "I want the drop zone/USPA/government to make me safe" model. Yep, John. Some of us are mature enough to understand and accept that....too many of us weren't taught personal responsibility as kids growing up. Some of us were taught but couldn't embrace it. Some of us just plain refuse to take it on. Wouldn't it be a better world if everyone had the balls to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions? Ahhhhh....one can only dream. Such is life. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #132 April 11, 2012 Quote>hasnpt worked with hook turns.... True. Sometimes it takes many years....and injuries...and fatalities. FIFYMy reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #133 April 11, 2012 Quote Quote Whoa! Easy there. I didn't berate anyone. The person I was replying to - John Rich - is a dear friend with more experience and true wisdom in his little finger than most skydivers will ever have, and a person whose opinion I respect very much. Wow. Thanks for the compliment, Chuck. You're making me blush! Dammit, Chuck. Now he's getting a big head and will need a new frap hat. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #134 April 11, 2012 ...Wouldn't it be a better world if everyone had the balls to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Something keeps coming up whenever this topic is discussed: We hear how DZO's are mandating AAD's to "protect" themselves & their businesses. Protect them from what? If a customer lands w/out pulling how is this the responsibility of the DZO? Obviously the issue is lawsuits. The legal system has embraced the premise that businesses are responsible for the conduct of their employees & customers. This flawed "logic" is crippling this country and needs to be confronted head-on. Two things we can do to change this are 1) Eagerly accept any opportunity to serve on a jury and do not allow these plaintiffs to win. (It is not the fault of Wal-Mart if a customer slips & falls, for example.) 2) Take seriously the issue of tort reform. Many candidates for public office are serious about trying to do something about this. Find out who these people are and vote for them. J. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,105 #135 April 11, 2012 Quote ...Wouldn't it be a better world if everyone had the balls to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Something keeps coming up whenever this topic is discussed: We hear how DZO's are mandating AAD's to "protect" themselves & their businesses. Protect them from what? If a customer lands w/out pulling how is this the responsibility of the DZO? Obviously the issue is lawsuits. The legal system has embraced the premise that businesses are responsible for the conduct of their employees & customers. This flawed "logic" is crippling this country and needs to be confronted head-on. J. That is a very simplistic view. Every fatality at a DZ has significant negative consequences that go way beyond the legal liability issue.... 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 popsjumper 2 #136 April 11, 2012 QuoteEvery fatality at a DZ has significant negative consequences that go way beyond the legal liability issue. True enough. Yet we are talking about negative impact on the DZ. Would you care to name some of those impacts outside of the ramifications of the legal action already mentioned?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites spootch 0 #137 April 11, 2012 Reputation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JerryBaumchen 1,424 #138 April 11, 2012 Hi pops, Quotenegative impact on the DZ. Would you care to name some of those impacts I do not have a dog in this fight. However, from post #26 in the Injury - Zephyrhills April 3, 2012 thread: Loads were suspended until the helicopter came and transported him. That means no income for some period of time. Same with a fatality; and this could apply to the SAVE THE POND thread. Something to consider. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,105 #139 April 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteEvery fatality at a DZ has significant negative consequences that go way beyond the legal liability issue. True enough. Yet we are talking about negative impact on the DZ. Would you care to name some of those impacts outside of the ramifications of the legal action already mentioned? 1. Bad PR and negative media attention 2. Speculation about DZ safety issues on DZ.COM 3. Potential FAA inspections of plane, pilot and rigger paperwork 4. Cleaning up the bodies, notifying the family, and the emotional toll on the staff and witnesses. 5. Time spent by DZ staff with the coroner/medical examiner/police/sheriff 6. Other stuff that I can't think of right now. None of it is good.... 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 popsjumper 2 #140 April 11, 2012 Thanks, John. It's always good when people explain the meaning of their ambiguous comments...if for no other reason than for those who just don't get it.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #141 April 11, 2012 Thanks, Jerry. No fight...just wanted to get some specifics out there for those who haven't thought it out.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites floormonkey 0 #142 April 11, 2012 In my experience, each fatality results in the loss of at least one up jumper (not including the deceased)-usually a close friend of the deceased or a newer jumper who previously believed skydiving was safer than driving. In addition, it often takes a year or two for the dz to "recover", both in terms of number of jumps and socially, depending on the reputation or social importance of the deceased. There have been many lawsuits related to dead up jumpers. Whether the case goes to trial or not, it generally costs the dz. Both of these are direct losses of income. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpectreDriver 0 #143 April 14, 2012 This last page makes me realize folks are finally getting it. It would be GREAT to have old school DZs where there are few tandems, no USPA membership or BSRs, no specific "syllabus" or ratings required, just JUMPING! Funjumpers at a grass strip in the middle of nowhere partying it up every weekend. Such DZs would technically be perfectly legal, so why don't they exist?? Expense. Fuel, aircraft, gear, real estate. All are WAY higher than the 80s. So we're left with the business model, which requires all of the above "hassles" in order to provide skydiving to the masses. It's not socialism, just reality... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #144 April 14, 2012 QuoteThis last page makes me realize folks are finally getting it. It would be GREAT to have old school DZs where there are few tandems, no USPA membership or BSRs, no specific "syllabus" or ratings required, just JUMPING! Funjumpers at a grass strip in the middle of nowhere partying it up every weekend. Such DZs would technically be perfectly legal, so why don't they exist?? Expense. Fuel, aircraft, gear, real estate. All are WAY higher than the 80s. So we're left with the business model, which requires all of the above "hassles" in order to provide skydiving to the masses. It's not socialism, just reality... I think you were to go out and start “old school DZ” without the bother of BSR’s, non rated instructors and very few tandems to get in the way you would find out in 6 months max “why don't they exist.” You weren’t around when “old school DZ’s” were, but this is what you missed. You jumped out of planes like this…………… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Howard.jpg Wearing gear like this……… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/FirstRigElsinore-1.jpg Landed like this………………………. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/Landing7TU-1.jpg But not to worry they had a “vehicle” to come pick you up……when it ran….. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/PerrisValleyParaCenter.jpg SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skypuppy 1 #145 April 14, 2012 QuoteIn my experience, each fatality results in the loss of at least one up jumper (not including the deceased)-usually a close friend of the deceased or a newer jumper who previously believed skydiving was safer than driving. In addition, it often takes a year or two for the dz to "recover", both in terms of number of jumps and socially, depending on the reputation or social importance of the deceased. There have been many lawsuits related to dead up jumpers. Whether the case goes to trial or not, it generally costs the dz. Both of these are direct losses of income. I firmly believe there is probably a net boost in jumpers, while one or two may quit, many more will come out after hearing about a fatality, and some will stay with it. In many cases, I'm sure the number of jumps done would possibly increase, not decrease. It would certainly be up to the dzo if he shut down for a time or not. I'm sure there are lawsuits over injuries and other things as well. The number of fatalities of experienced, current jumpers w/o aads and the number of lawsuits over fatalities of experienced current jumepers w/o aads will be minimal.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Squeak 17 #146 April 14, 2012 Quote Quote This last page makes me realize folks are finally getting it. It would be GREAT to have old school DZs where there are few tandems, no USPA membership or BSRs, no specific "syllabus" or ratings required, just JUMPING! Funjumpers at a grass strip in the middle of nowhere partying it up every weekend. Such DZs would technically be perfectly legal, so why don't they exist?? Expense. Fuel, aircraft, gear, real estate. All are WAY higher than the 80s. So we're left with the business model, which requires all of the above "hassles" in order to provide skydiving to the masses. It's not socialism, just reality... I think you were to go out and start “old school DZ” without the bother of BSR’s, non rated instructors and very few tandems to get in the way you would find out in 6 months max “why don't they exist.” You weren’t around when “old school DZ’s” were, but this is what you missed. You jumped out of planes like this…………… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Howard.jpg Wearing gear like this……… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/FirstRigElsinore-1.jpg Landed like this………………………. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/Landing7TU-1.jpg But not to worry they had a “vehicle” to come pick you up……when it ran….. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/PerrisValleyParaCenter.jpg Sparky Fuck me you're old SparkyYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites obelixtim 150 #147 April 14, 2012 A ride back to the DZ....luxury!!!. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #148 April 14, 2012 Quote Quote Quote This last page makes me realize folks are finally getting it. It would be GREAT to have old school DZs where there are few tandems, no USPA membership or BSRs, no specific "syllabus" or ratings required, just JUMPING! Funjumpers at a grass strip in the middle of nowhere partying it up every weekend. Such DZs would technically be perfectly legal, so why don't they exist?? Expense. Fuel, aircraft, gear, real estate. All are WAY higher than the 80s. So we're left with the business model, which requires all of the above "hassles" in order to provide skydiving to the masses. It's not socialism, just reality... I think you were to go out and start “old school DZ” without the bother of BSR’s, non rated instructors and very few tandems to get in the way you would find out in 6 months max “why don't they exist.” You weren’t around when “old school DZ’s” were, but this is what you missed. You jumped out of planes like this…………… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Howard.jpg Wearing gear like this……… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/FirstRigElsinore-1.jpg Landed like this………………………. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/Landing7TU-1.jpg But not to worry they had a “vehicle” to come pick you up……when it ran….. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/PerrisValleyParaCenter.jpg Sparky Fuck me you're old Sparky SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites zuziel 0 #149 April 24, 2012 I choose to not jump with an AAD and DZOs have the right to establish any rule they wish. This particular rule is very short sighted (as others have stated in this thread). Establishing an AAD requirement without any wing loading requirement is worthless in a lot of cases. As a good friend and respected rigger has said to me, an AAD with a highly loaded reserve will not save an incapacitated jumper. In my opinion.... If SSM was implementing this rule for safety and not just as a reaction to a tragedy, they would include maximum wing loading rules as well. I guess my days of driving to SSM and having a fun weekend will soon be over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites topdocker 0 #150 April 24, 2012 QuoteI choose to not jump with an AAD and DZOs have the right to establish any rule they wish. This particular rule is very short sighted (as others have stated in this thread). Establishing an AAD requirement without any wing loading requirement is worthless in a lot of cases. As a good friend and respected rigger has said to me, an AAD with a highly loaded reserve will not save an incapacitated jumper. In my opinion.... If SSM was implementing this rule for safety and not just as a reaction to a tragedy, they would include maximum wing loading rules as well. I guess my days of driving to SSM and having a fun weekend will soon be over. Just show up with an FXC Model 12000, there are a bunch laying around in lofts all over the states. topJump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,059 #129 April 9, 2012 >If the DZ was so blatantly operating in this manner I can't imagine >enough people participating to keep it in business. I agree. People would "vote with their feet." BTW the Long Island skydiving scene wasn't much different than you described when I started in the early 90's. Which meant that I generally made the 2-3 hour drive to the Ranch to jump. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #130 April 11, 2012 Quote>If the DZ was so blatantly operating in this manner I can't imagine >enough people participating to keep it in business. I agree. People would "vote with their feet." BTW the Long Island skydiving scene wasn't much different than you described when I started in the early 90's. Which meant that I generally made the 2-3 hour drive to the Ranch to jump. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ One issue was that I had been accustomed to renting gear. I had a rig but would rent/borrow an altimeter, helmet, etc. I learned that this DZ did not offer gear rental but they helped me out. I jumped there for two months, then stopped coming out because I didn't want to be a burden. Almost a year later I returned with all my stuff only to learn that I'd been banned. Four years later I saw some of these guys at other DZ's. They still wouldn't even look at me, let alone talk to me. J. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #131 April 11, 2012 Quote I believe in the personal responsibility model. not in the "I want the drop zone/USPA/government to make me safe" model. Yep, John. Some of us are mature enough to understand and accept that....too many of us weren't taught personal responsibility as kids growing up. Some of us were taught but couldn't embrace it. Some of us just plain refuse to take it on. Wouldn't it be a better world if everyone had the balls to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions? Ahhhhh....one can only dream. Such is life. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #132 April 11, 2012 Quote>hasnpt worked with hook turns.... True. Sometimes it takes many years....and injuries...and fatalities. FIFYMy reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #133 April 11, 2012 Quote Quote Whoa! Easy there. I didn't berate anyone. The person I was replying to - John Rich - is a dear friend with more experience and true wisdom in his little finger than most skydivers will ever have, and a person whose opinion I respect very much. Wow. Thanks for the compliment, Chuck. You're making me blush! Dammit, Chuck. Now he's getting a big head and will need a new frap hat. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #134 April 11, 2012 ...Wouldn't it be a better world if everyone had the balls to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Something keeps coming up whenever this topic is discussed: We hear how DZO's are mandating AAD's to "protect" themselves & their businesses. Protect them from what? If a customer lands w/out pulling how is this the responsibility of the DZO? Obviously the issue is lawsuits. The legal system has embraced the premise that businesses are responsible for the conduct of their employees & customers. This flawed "logic" is crippling this country and needs to be confronted head-on. Two things we can do to change this are 1) Eagerly accept any opportunity to serve on a jury and do not allow these plaintiffs to win. (It is not the fault of Wal-Mart if a customer slips & falls, for example.) 2) Take seriously the issue of tort reform. Many candidates for public office are serious about trying to do something about this. Find out who these people are and vote for them. J. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,105 #135 April 11, 2012 Quote ...Wouldn't it be a better world if everyone had the balls to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Something keeps coming up whenever this topic is discussed: We hear how DZO's are mandating AAD's to "protect" themselves & their businesses. Protect them from what? If a customer lands w/out pulling how is this the responsibility of the DZO? Obviously the issue is lawsuits. The legal system has embraced the premise that businesses are responsible for the conduct of their employees & customers. This flawed "logic" is crippling this country and needs to be confronted head-on. J. That is a very simplistic view. Every fatality at a DZ has significant negative consequences that go way beyond the legal liability issue.... 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 popsjumper 2 #136 April 11, 2012 QuoteEvery fatality at a DZ has significant negative consequences that go way beyond the legal liability issue. True enough. Yet we are talking about negative impact on the DZ. Would you care to name some of those impacts outside of the ramifications of the legal action already mentioned?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites spootch 0 #137 April 11, 2012 Reputation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JerryBaumchen 1,424 #138 April 11, 2012 Hi pops, Quotenegative impact on the DZ. Would you care to name some of those impacts I do not have a dog in this fight. However, from post #26 in the Injury - Zephyrhills April 3, 2012 thread: Loads were suspended until the helicopter came and transported him. That means no income for some period of time. Same with a fatality; and this could apply to the SAVE THE POND thread. Something to consider. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,105 #139 April 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteEvery fatality at a DZ has significant negative consequences that go way beyond the legal liability issue. True enough. Yet we are talking about negative impact on the DZ. Would you care to name some of those impacts outside of the ramifications of the legal action already mentioned? 1. Bad PR and negative media attention 2. Speculation about DZ safety issues on DZ.COM 3. Potential FAA inspections of plane, pilot and rigger paperwork 4. Cleaning up the bodies, notifying the family, and the emotional toll on the staff and witnesses. 5. Time spent by DZ staff with the coroner/medical examiner/police/sheriff 6. Other stuff that I can't think of right now. None of it is good.... 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 popsjumper 2 #140 April 11, 2012 Thanks, John. It's always good when people explain the meaning of their ambiguous comments...if for no other reason than for those who just don't get it.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #141 April 11, 2012 Thanks, Jerry. No fight...just wanted to get some specifics out there for those who haven't thought it out.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites floormonkey 0 #142 April 11, 2012 In my experience, each fatality results in the loss of at least one up jumper (not including the deceased)-usually a close friend of the deceased or a newer jumper who previously believed skydiving was safer than driving. In addition, it often takes a year or two for the dz to "recover", both in terms of number of jumps and socially, depending on the reputation or social importance of the deceased. There have been many lawsuits related to dead up jumpers. Whether the case goes to trial or not, it generally costs the dz. Both of these are direct losses of income. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpectreDriver 0 #143 April 14, 2012 This last page makes me realize folks are finally getting it. It would be GREAT to have old school DZs where there are few tandems, no USPA membership or BSRs, no specific "syllabus" or ratings required, just JUMPING! Funjumpers at a grass strip in the middle of nowhere partying it up every weekend. Such DZs would technically be perfectly legal, so why don't they exist?? Expense. Fuel, aircraft, gear, real estate. All are WAY higher than the 80s. So we're left with the business model, which requires all of the above "hassles" in order to provide skydiving to the masses. It's not socialism, just reality... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #144 April 14, 2012 QuoteThis last page makes me realize folks are finally getting it. It would be GREAT to have old school DZs where there are few tandems, no USPA membership or BSRs, no specific "syllabus" or ratings required, just JUMPING! Funjumpers at a grass strip in the middle of nowhere partying it up every weekend. Such DZs would technically be perfectly legal, so why don't they exist?? Expense. Fuel, aircraft, gear, real estate. All are WAY higher than the 80s. So we're left with the business model, which requires all of the above "hassles" in order to provide skydiving to the masses. It's not socialism, just reality... I think you were to go out and start “old school DZ” without the bother of BSR’s, non rated instructors and very few tandems to get in the way you would find out in 6 months max “why don't they exist.” You weren’t around when “old school DZ’s” were, but this is what you missed. You jumped out of planes like this…………… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Howard.jpg Wearing gear like this……… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/FirstRigElsinore-1.jpg Landed like this………………………. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/Landing7TU-1.jpg But not to worry they had a “vehicle” to come pick you up……when it ran….. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/PerrisValleyParaCenter.jpg SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skypuppy 1 #145 April 14, 2012 QuoteIn my experience, each fatality results in the loss of at least one up jumper (not including the deceased)-usually a close friend of the deceased or a newer jumper who previously believed skydiving was safer than driving. In addition, it often takes a year or two for the dz to "recover", both in terms of number of jumps and socially, depending on the reputation or social importance of the deceased. There have been many lawsuits related to dead up jumpers. Whether the case goes to trial or not, it generally costs the dz. Both of these are direct losses of income. I firmly believe there is probably a net boost in jumpers, while one or two may quit, many more will come out after hearing about a fatality, and some will stay with it. In many cases, I'm sure the number of jumps done would possibly increase, not decrease. It would certainly be up to the dzo if he shut down for a time or not. I'm sure there are lawsuits over injuries and other things as well. The number of fatalities of experienced, current jumpers w/o aads and the number of lawsuits over fatalities of experienced current jumepers w/o aads will be minimal.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Squeak 17 #146 April 14, 2012 Quote Quote This last page makes me realize folks are finally getting it. It would be GREAT to have old school DZs where there are few tandems, no USPA membership or BSRs, no specific "syllabus" or ratings required, just JUMPING! Funjumpers at a grass strip in the middle of nowhere partying it up every weekend. Such DZs would technically be perfectly legal, so why don't they exist?? Expense. Fuel, aircraft, gear, real estate. All are WAY higher than the 80s. So we're left with the business model, which requires all of the above "hassles" in order to provide skydiving to the masses. It's not socialism, just reality... I think you were to go out and start “old school DZ” without the bother of BSR’s, non rated instructors and very few tandems to get in the way you would find out in 6 months max “why don't they exist.” You weren’t around when “old school DZ’s” were, but this is what you missed. You jumped out of planes like this…………… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Howard.jpg Wearing gear like this……… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/FirstRigElsinore-1.jpg Landed like this………………………. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/Landing7TU-1.jpg But not to worry they had a “vehicle” to come pick you up……when it ran….. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/PerrisValleyParaCenter.jpg Sparky Fuck me you're old SparkyYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites obelixtim 150 #147 April 14, 2012 A ride back to the DZ....luxury!!!. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #148 April 14, 2012 Quote Quote Quote This last page makes me realize folks are finally getting it. It would be GREAT to have old school DZs where there are few tandems, no USPA membership or BSRs, no specific "syllabus" or ratings required, just JUMPING! Funjumpers at a grass strip in the middle of nowhere partying it up every weekend. Such DZs would technically be perfectly legal, so why don't they exist?? Expense. Fuel, aircraft, gear, real estate. All are WAY higher than the 80s. So we're left with the business model, which requires all of the above "hassles" in order to provide skydiving to the masses. It's not socialism, just reality... I think you were to go out and start “old school DZ” without the bother of BSR’s, non rated instructors and very few tandems to get in the way you would find out in 6 months max “why don't they exist.” You weren’t around when “old school DZ’s” were, but this is what you missed. You jumped out of planes like this…………… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Howard.jpg Wearing gear like this……… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/FirstRigElsinore-1.jpg Landed like this………………………. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/Landing7TU-1.jpg But not to worry they had a “vehicle” to come pick you up……when it ran….. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/PerrisValleyParaCenter.jpg Sparky Fuck me you're old Sparky SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites zuziel 0 #149 April 24, 2012 I choose to not jump with an AAD and DZOs have the right to establish any rule they wish. This particular rule is very short sighted (as others have stated in this thread). Establishing an AAD requirement without any wing loading requirement is worthless in a lot of cases. As a good friend and respected rigger has said to me, an AAD with a highly loaded reserve will not save an incapacitated jumper. In my opinion.... If SSM was implementing this rule for safety and not just as a reaction to a tragedy, they would include maximum wing loading rules as well. I guess my days of driving to SSM and having a fun weekend will soon be over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites topdocker 0 #150 April 24, 2012 QuoteI choose to not jump with an AAD and DZOs have the right to establish any rule they wish. This particular rule is very short sighted (as others have stated in this thread). Establishing an AAD requirement without any wing loading requirement is worthless in a lot of cases. As a good friend and respected rigger has said to me, an AAD with a highly loaded reserve will not save an incapacitated jumper. In my opinion.... If SSM was implementing this rule for safety and not just as a reaction to a tragedy, they would include maximum wing loading rules as well. I guess my days of driving to SSM and having a fun weekend will soon be over. Just show up with an FXC Model 12000, there are a bunch laying around in lofts all over the states. topJump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
popsjumper 2 #131 April 11, 2012 Quote I believe in the personal responsibility model. not in the "I want the drop zone/USPA/government to make me safe" model. Yep, John. Some of us are mature enough to understand and accept that....too many of us weren't taught personal responsibility as kids growing up. Some of us were taught but couldn't embrace it. Some of us just plain refuse to take it on. Wouldn't it be a better world if everyone had the balls to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions? Ahhhhh....one can only dream. Such is life. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #132 April 11, 2012 Quote>hasnpt worked with hook turns.... True. Sometimes it takes many years....and injuries...and fatalities. FIFYMy reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #133 April 11, 2012 Quote Quote Whoa! Easy there. I didn't berate anyone. The person I was replying to - John Rich - is a dear friend with more experience and true wisdom in his little finger than most skydivers will ever have, and a person whose opinion I respect very much. Wow. Thanks for the compliment, Chuck. You're making me blush! Dammit, Chuck. Now he's getting a big head and will need a new frap hat. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #134 April 11, 2012 ...Wouldn't it be a better world if everyone had the balls to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Something keeps coming up whenever this topic is discussed: We hear how DZO's are mandating AAD's to "protect" themselves & their businesses. Protect them from what? If a customer lands w/out pulling how is this the responsibility of the DZO? Obviously the issue is lawsuits. The legal system has embraced the premise that businesses are responsible for the conduct of their employees & customers. This flawed "logic" is crippling this country and needs to be confronted head-on. Two things we can do to change this are 1) Eagerly accept any opportunity to serve on a jury and do not allow these plaintiffs to win. (It is not the fault of Wal-Mart if a customer slips & falls, for example.) 2) Take seriously the issue of tort reform. Many candidates for public office are serious about trying to do something about this. Find out who these people are and vote for them. J. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,105 #135 April 11, 2012 Quote ...Wouldn't it be a better world if everyone had the balls to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Something keeps coming up whenever this topic is discussed: We hear how DZO's are mandating AAD's to "protect" themselves & their businesses. Protect them from what? If a customer lands w/out pulling how is this the responsibility of the DZO? Obviously the issue is lawsuits. The legal system has embraced the premise that businesses are responsible for the conduct of their employees & customers. This flawed "logic" is crippling this country and needs to be confronted head-on. J. That is a very simplistic view. Every fatality at a DZ has significant negative consequences that go way beyond the legal liability issue.... 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
popsjumper 2 #136 April 11, 2012 QuoteEvery fatality at a DZ has significant negative consequences that go way beyond the legal liability issue. True enough. Yet we are talking about negative impact on the DZ. Would you care to name some of those impacts outside of the ramifications of the legal action already mentioned?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,424 #138 April 11, 2012 Hi pops, Quotenegative impact on the DZ. Would you care to name some of those impacts I do not have a dog in this fight. However, from post #26 in the Injury - Zephyrhills April 3, 2012 thread: Loads were suspended until the helicopter came and transported him. That means no income for some period of time. Same with a fatality; and this could apply to the SAVE THE POND thread. Something to consider. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,105 #139 April 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteEvery fatality at a DZ has significant negative consequences that go way beyond the legal liability issue. True enough. Yet we are talking about negative impact on the DZ. Would you care to name some of those impacts outside of the ramifications of the legal action already mentioned? 1. Bad PR and negative media attention 2. Speculation about DZ safety issues on DZ.COM 3. Potential FAA inspections of plane, pilot and rigger paperwork 4. Cleaning up the bodies, notifying the family, and the emotional toll on the staff and witnesses. 5. Time spent by DZ staff with the coroner/medical examiner/police/sheriff 6. Other stuff that I can't think of right now. None of it is good.... 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
popsjumper 2 #140 April 11, 2012 Thanks, John. It's always good when people explain the meaning of their ambiguous comments...if for no other reason than for those who just don't get it.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #141 April 11, 2012 Thanks, Jerry. No fight...just wanted to get some specifics out there for those who haven't thought it out.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
floormonkey 0 #142 April 11, 2012 In my experience, each fatality results in the loss of at least one up jumper (not including the deceased)-usually a close friend of the deceased or a newer jumper who previously believed skydiving was safer than driving. In addition, it often takes a year or two for the dz to "recover", both in terms of number of jumps and socially, depending on the reputation or social importance of the deceased. There have been many lawsuits related to dead up jumpers. Whether the case goes to trial or not, it generally costs the dz. Both of these are direct losses of income. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpectreDriver 0 #143 April 14, 2012 This last page makes me realize folks are finally getting it. It would be GREAT to have old school DZs where there are few tandems, no USPA membership or BSRs, no specific "syllabus" or ratings required, just JUMPING! Funjumpers at a grass strip in the middle of nowhere partying it up every weekend. Such DZs would technically be perfectly legal, so why don't they exist?? Expense. Fuel, aircraft, gear, real estate. All are WAY higher than the 80s. So we're left with the business model, which requires all of the above "hassles" in order to provide skydiving to the masses. It's not socialism, just reality... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #144 April 14, 2012 QuoteThis last page makes me realize folks are finally getting it. It would be GREAT to have old school DZs where there are few tandems, no USPA membership or BSRs, no specific "syllabus" or ratings required, just JUMPING! Funjumpers at a grass strip in the middle of nowhere partying it up every weekend. Such DZs would technically be perfectly legal, so why don't they exist?? Expense. Fuel, aircraft, gear, real estate. All are WAY higher than the 80s. So we're left with the business model, which requires all of the above "hassles" in order to provide skydiving to the masses. It's not socialism, just reality... I think you were to go out and start “old school DZ” without the bother of BSR’s, non rated instructors and very few tandems to get in the way you would find out in 6 months max “why don't they exist.” You weren’t around when “old school DZ’s” were, but this is what you missed. You jumped out of planes like this…………… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Howard.jpg Wearing gear like this……… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/FirstRigElsinore-1.jpg Landed like this………………………. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/Landing7TU-1.jpg But not to worry they had a “vehicle” to come pick you up……when it ran….. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/PerrisValleyParaCenter.jpg SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #145 April 14, 2012 QuoteIn my experience, each fatality results in the loss of at least one up jumper (not including the deceased)-usually a close friend of the deceased or a newer jumper who previously believed skydiving was safer than driving. In addition, it often takes a year or two for the dz to "recover", both in terms of number of jumps and socially, depending on the reputation or social importance of the deceased. There have been many lawsuits related to dead up jumpers. Whether the case goes to trial or not, it generally costs the dz. Both of these are direct losses of income. I firmly believe there is probably a net boost in jumpers, while one or two may quit, many more will come out after hearing about a fatality, and some will stay with it. In many cases, I'm sure the number of jumps done would possibly increase, not decrease. It would certainly be up to the dzo if he shut down for a time or not. I'm sure there are lawsuits over injuries and other things as well. The number of fatalities of experienced, current jumpers w/o aads and the number of lawsuits over fatalities of experienced current jumepers w/o aads will be minimal.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #146 April 14, 2012 Quote Quote This last page makes me realize folks are finally getting it. It would be GREAT to have old school DZs where there are few tandems, no USPA membership or BSRs, no specific "syllabus" or ratings required, just JUMPING! Funjumpers at a grass strip in the middle of nowhere partying it up every weekend. Such DZs would technically be perfectly legal, so why don't they exist?? Expense. Fuel, aircraft, gear, real estate. All are WAY higher than the 80s. So we're left with the business model, which requires all of the above "hassles" in order to provide skydiving to the masses. It's not socialism, just reality... I think you were to go out and start “old school DZ” without the bother of BSR’s, non rated instructors and very few tandems to get in the way you would find out in 6 months max “why don't they exist.” You weren’t around when “old school DZ’s” were, but this is what you missed. You jumped out of planes like this…………… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Howard.jpg Wearing gear like this……… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/FirstRigElsinore-1.jpg Landed like this………………………. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/Landing7TU-1.jpg But not to worry they had a “vehicle” to come pick you up……when it ran….. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/PerrisValleyParaCenter.jpg Sparky Fuck me you're old SparkyYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 150 #147 April 14, 2012 A ride back to the DZ....luxury!!!. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #148 April 14, 2012 Quote Quote Quote This last page makes me realize folks are finally getting it. It would be GREAT to have old school DZs where there are few tandems, no USPA membership or BSRs, no specific "syllabus" or ratings required, just JUMPING! Funjumpers at a grass strip in the middle of nowhere partying it up every weekend. Such DZs would technically be perfectly legal, so why don't they exist?? Expense. Fuel, aircraft, gear, real estate. All are WAY higher than the 80s. So we're left with the business model, which requires all of the above "hassles" in order to provide skydiving to the masses. It's not socialism, just reality... I think you were to go out and start “old school DZ” without the bother of BSR’s, non rated instructors and very few tandems to get in the way you would find out in 6 months max “why don't they exist.” You weren’t around when “old school DZ’s” were, but this is what you missed. You jumped out of planes like this…………… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Howard.jpg Wearing gear like this……… http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/FirstRigElsinore-1.jpg Landed like this………………………. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/Landing7TU-1.jpg But not to worry they had a “vehicle” to come pick you up……when it ran….. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/PerrisValleyParaCenter.jpg Sparky Fuck me you're old Sparky SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zuziel 0 #149 April 24, 2012 I choose to not jump with an AAD and DZOs have the right to establish any rule they wish. This particular rule is very short sighted (as others have stated in this thread). Establishing an AAD requirement without any wing loading requirement is worthless in a lot of cases. As a good friend and respected rigger has said to me, an AAD with a highly loaded reserve will not save an incapacitated jumper. In my opinion.... If SSM was implementing this rule for safety and not just as a reaction to a tragedy, they would include maximum wing loading rules as well. I guess my days of driving to SSM and having a fun weekend will soon be over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
topdocker 0 #150 April 24, 2012 QuoteI choose to not jump with an AAD and DZOs have the right to establish any rule they wish. This particular rule is very short sighted (as others have stated in this thread). Establishing an AAD requirement without any wing loading requirement is worthless in a lot of cases. As a good friend and respected rigger has said to me, an AAD with a highly loaded reserve will not save an incapacitated jumper. In my opinion.... If SSM was implementing this rule for safety and not just as a reaction to a tragedy, they would include maximum wing loading rules as well. I guess my days of driving to SSM and having a fun weekend will soon be over. Just show up with an FXC Model 12000, there are a bunch laying around in lofts all over the states. topJump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
