0
catfishhunter

Letter from the Head of the FAA (May Parachutist)

Recommended Posts

I think you've got some amazing ideas here but do see a potential conflict of interest which may also explain why we don't see more response at the DZ level.

Quote

I think a one-jump-ticket fine would be a good first-offense penalty. Second offense, two jump tickets (or three or four). Third offense -- or ANY offense that results in a collision or an injury do the ROW violation -- grounding for anywhere from the rest of the day to whatever.



From a strictly monetary standpoint:
Would these fines assessed by the DZ staff go directly to the DZ? If so, the more they fine, the more pure profit they make.

On the flip side, if a DZ grounds someone, that's lost revenue.

Perhaps the solution is coming up with a system where the DZ itself neither loses or gains by disciplining a jumper.

Ex: If a jumper is fined, the jump ticket fine still takes a slot on the next plane going up so if full, one less jumper can go.

If someone wanted to calculate an average per slot profit that portion of the fine could go to the DZ and the rest could go towards a canopy education effort.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think you've got some amazing ideas here but do see a potential conflict of interest which may also explain why we don't see more response at the DZ level.

Quote

I think a one-jump-ticket fine would be a good first-offense penalty. Second offense, two jump tickets (or three or four). Third offense -- or ANY offense that results in a collision or an injury do the ROW violation -- grounding for anywhere from the rest of the day to whatever.



From a strictly monetary standpoint:
Would these fines assessed by the DZ staff go directly to the DZ? If so, the more they fine, the more pure profit they make.

On the flip side, if a DZ grounds someone, that's lost revenue.

Perhaps the solution is coming up with a system where the DZ itself neither loses or gains by disciplining a jumper.
.



I'm grateful to be on a DZ where someone who blatantly disregards safety rules is given options:
~Abide by the rules
~Jump elsewhere.

Profits be damned, safety first. It may be rare, but that ethic does exist.
I happen to like Robin's model very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think you've got some amazing ideas here but do see a potential conflict of interest which may also explain why we don't see more response at the DZ level.

Quote

I think a one-jump-ticket fine would be a good first-offense penalty. Second offense, two jump tickets (or three or four). Third offense -- or ANY offense that results in a collision or an injury do the ROW violation -- grounding for anywhere from the rest of the day to whatever.



From a strictly monetary standpoint:
Would these fines assessed by the DZ staff go directly to the DZ? If so, the more they fine, the more pure profit they make.

On the flip side, if a DZ grounds someone, that's lost revenue.

Perhaps the solution is coming up with a system where the DZ itself neither loses or gains by disciplining a jumper.

Ex: If a jumper is fined, the jump ticket fine still takes a slot on the next plane going up so if full, one less jumper can go.

If someone wanted to calculate an average per slot profit that portion of the fine could go to the DZ and the rest could go towards a canopy education effort.



The penalty is not nearly as important as having a set of rules to enforce. As Robin said each DZ can have its own set of penalties and if your DZO has rules that you think unfairly contribute to his profits, you can either lobby him for different penalties or choose a new place to jump.

I've been enjoying the posts by people that are truly contributing to making our sport safer and hope that we can keep the focus of the discussion on things that really matter.

Let's get some more contributions about what rules need to be developed.
"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



I'm grateful to be on a DZ where someone who blatantly disregards safety rules is given options:
~Abide by the rules
~Jump elsewhere.

Profits be damned, safety first. It may be rare, but that ethic does exist.
I happen to like Robin's model very much.



But currently DZs that are doing the right thing are being penalized for doing so. But by the same token we don't want to setup a system that profits from safety as it could quickly turn into "safety." Speed and red light cameras are a good example of this.

I've though of a better idea: the slot still has to be used, but not right away. It can be saved for when there aren't enough jumpers to run or turn a load. :)
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I think you've got some amazing ideas here but do see a potential conflict of interest which may also explain why we don't see more response at the DZ level.

Quote

I think a one-jump-ticket fine would be a good first-offense penalty. Second offense, two jump tickets (or three or four). Third offense -- or ANY offense that results in a collision or an injury do the ROW violation -- grounding for anywhere from the rest of the day to whatever.



From a strictly monetary standpoint:
Would these fines assessed by the DZ staff go directly to the DZ? If so, the more they fine, the more pure profit they make.

On the flip side, if a DZ grounds someone, that's lost revenue.

Perhaps the solution is coming up with a system where the DZ itself neither loses or gains by disciplining a jumper.

Ex: If a jumper is fined, the jump ticket fine still takes a slot on the next plane going up so if full, one less jumper can go.

If someone wanted to calculate an average per slot profit that portion of the fine could go to the DZ and the rest could go towards a canopy education effort.



The penalty is not nearly as important as having a set of rules to enforce. As Robin said each DZ can have its own set of penalties and if your DZO has rules that you think unfairly contribute to his profits, you can either lobby him for different penalties or choose a new place to jump.

I've been enjoying the posts by people that are truly contributing to making our sport safer and hope that we can keep the focus of the discussion on things that really matter.

Let's get some more contributions about what rules need to be developed.



We have the rules already, but they aren't enforced or aren't enforced consistently to all.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



But currently DZs that are doing the right thing are being penalized for doing so. But by the same token we don't want to setup a system that profits from safety as it could quickly turn into "safety."



How are they being penalized? Skydiving is a business. If you put my other customers at risk, I don't want you here. It's that easy.
Example;
Foreign wingsuit flies across three lanes of wingsuit traffic. Then he flew 180 to other WS and into tandem traffic. He'd been briefed before his jump.
When he was talked to, he refused to accept he'd made an error and refused to agree to not do this again.
One of two choices;
~ Obey the rules
~ Jump elsewhere.
It's not a penalty, it's that our "customers" are safer for not having that sort of stupidity in the air.
Fining people does put money in the DZO's pocket. And?...
Just as a traffic fine pays for law enforcement, a DZO might use the fine-fund to develop stronger safety messaging to be posted around the DZ.

Robin's model is clean and clear. No dicking around with "not enough slots/is this a fine slot or a paid slot/who wants to take the penalty slot on this load.?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



But currently DZs that are doing the right thing are being penalized for doing so. But by the same token we don't want to setup a system that profits from safety as it could quickly turn into "safety."



How are they being penalized? Skydiving is a business. If you put my other customers at risk, I don't want you here. It's that easy.
Example;
Foreign wingsuit flies across three lanes of wingsuit traffic. Then he flew 180 to other WS and into tandem traffic. He'd been briefed before his jump.
When he was talked to, he refused to accept he'd made an error and refused to agree to not do this again.
One of two choices;
~ Obey the rules
~ Jump elsewhere.
It's not a penalty, it's that our "customers" are safer for not having that sort of stupidity in the air.
Fining people does put money in the DZO's pocket. And?...
Just as a traffic fine pays for law enforcement, a DZO might use the fine-fund to develop stronger safety messaging to be posted around the DZ.

Robin's model is clean and clear. No dicking around with "not enough slots/is this a fine slot or a paid slot/who wants to take the penalty slot on this load.?"


I agree that the DZ is safer for not having that sort of jumper in the air which makes their customers safer which in the long run will likely pay off in less incidents that may require the plane to be shutdown, investigations etc. All of that equals more profit.

But in the short term, that DZ basically lost revenue on those slots that jumper would have bought were they not kicked off/grounded. The loss becomes actual if the jumper just goes to another DZ and jumps.

Some businesses only think short term. It's unfortunate, but true and one thing that needs to be factored in for a program like this to work. We could call it the SkyRide principle: "If I don't take let this person jump (take the certificates) they'll just go and do it elsewhere." ;)

That same short sightedness on not grounding people could do a complete 180 if it started to be viewed as a profit center. Fines are big business moneymakers as they are basically pure profit. The quickest way to lose sight of an original good intention is for people to start making lots of money on it.

Additonally, even if the slot fine is used, the DZ is still slightly ahead of if the slot was used normally as since there was less weight, less fuel had to be used.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What loss of revenue ? Couple a hundred bucs for that weekend and maybe the next ? :S A couple of hours with an attorney will have a much higher cost.....please. Once people have to sit out and face the scorn of others it'll change quick. No one likes to have the percieved "Loser" taped to their forehead....
and if the older more experienced jumpers/popular led by example it would even shape up sooner...

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there anything that you will not argue with? With you it is all “me me”. With your experience level you are not nearly as good as you think. Arrogance and selfishness is not what makes a good canopy pilot. It takes attitude and maturity, knowing your own limitations and understanding the consequence of your actions.
I am done with this, it is not worth the aggravation. I just hope you don’t kill someone because the way you look at thing now makes you dangerous.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I think you've got some amazing ideas here but do see a potential conflict of interest which may also explain why we don't see more response at the DZ level.

Quote

I think a one-jump-ticket fine would be a good first-offense penalty. Second offense, two jump tickets (or three or four). Third offense -- or ANY offense that results in a collision or an injury do the ROW violation -- grounding for anywhere from the rest of the day to whatever.



From a strictly monetary standpoint:
Would these fines assessed by the DZ staff go directly to the DZ? If so, the more they fine, the more pure profit they make.

On the flip side, if a DZ grounds someone, that's lost revenue.

Perhaps the solution is coming up with a system where the DZ itself neither loses or gains by disciplining a jumper.

Ex: If a jumper is fined, the jump ticket fine still takes a slot on the next plane going up so if full, one less jumper can go.

If someone wanted to calculate an average per slot profit that portion of the fine could go to the DZ and the rest could go towards a canopy education effort.


The penalty is not nearly as important as having a set of rules to enforce. As Robin said each DZ can have its own set of penalties and if your DZO has rules that you think unfairly contribute to his profits, you can either lobby him for different penalties or choose a new place to jump.

I've been enjoying the posts by people that are truly contributing to making our sport safer and hope that we can keep the focus of the discussion on things that really matter.

Let's get some more contributions about what rules need to be developed.


Bolas does like to argue, unlike every other skydiver I've ever met(LOL), and he's clearly never heard of Occam's Razor, but his point here is nevertheless a reasonable one that illustrates my contention that this must start locally, not at the system level.

Where should the fine money go?

How about to the party fund for an end-of-season shindig?

How about to the bounce fund? You know, when someone goes in, there are usually survivors who can use a quick injection of cash to deal with the aftermath.

How about for the DZ's Thanksgiving food drive or Christmas toys-for-tots drive or other similar charity activity to connect the DZ to the community?

How about (fill in the blank)? That is the point of developing this kind of system locally: each DZ community comes up with its own details of this very general concept. Some of the plans will work great from the get-go, others will need tweaking, but if we have 20 or 30 or 50 DZs all coming up with their own plans, some "best practices" will quickly emerge and then be adopted more widely.

There's another element to the escalating-fines-then-suspension idea and that is its incrementalism.

One of the systemic problems we face in managing ROW violations is that some are worse than others, yet we sort of have a one-size-fits-all response available now -- ignore it or ground 'em -- and I understand why a DZO or S&TA might be reluctant to ground someone for a fairly minor infraction, or because s/he's a key staffer or whatever. With the fine-first, then-ground method, you can get people's attention without ruining their day, or the day of the rest of their team, or otherwise coming down on them harder than their particular offense might warrant.

Football is another example where incremental punishments can be levied that allow players to stay in the game even though they broke a rule.

Some rule breaks cost their team 5 yards, some 10 yards, some 15 yards, some at "the spot of the foul" -- and for certain transgressions, ejection from the game, sometimes followed by suspensions from future games.

I think if we start adopting ROW penalty systems based on already-in-place-and-proven systems such as auto traffic and professional sports, then we start moving in the direction of a long-term solution.

B|
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know Bolas at all, never met him and probably never will, but his continued concern over potential financial penalties (a minor point of Robin's post) causes me to wonder if he is concerned that he may well be the recipient of such a penalty, or perhaps he just didn't understand the major thrust of Robin's post.
"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Douglas,

Quote

Fining people does put money in the DZO's pocket. And?...



Not too long ago, due to excessive bad behavior, the NBA did a comprehensive study to see what would work with their basketball players: Fine vs Suspension

Overwhelmingly, it was the suspension that worked. For the $$$, they merely paid it up & it had little to no effect on them.

IMO most jumpers faced with a fine would just toss the $20 bill in & keep on doing what they were doing.

Just something to think about . . .

JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think a one-jump-ticket fine would be a good first-offense penalty.



Although this sounds like a good idea, I am not too sure as to the legality of it. To the best of my knowledge private businesses cannot "fine" individuals without an express written agreement, at most they can refuse to render services (in this case a ride to altitude). In order for a business to in any way be empowered to level a monetary fine upon an individual that individual would certainly have to sign an agreement empowering said business to do so (by example professional athletes almost always work under a collectively bargained agreement that allows the employer to levy monetary fines). So in order

And what if the skydiver refused to pay? Obviously the DZO could prohibit their jumping but good luck trying to make them pay, they would have to prove in a court of law that the person
a) violated DZ policy and,
b) willingly consented to being fined for any violations of said policy.

And what sort of appeal system would be put into place? Every other (non-government) entity that has the power to levy fines also has set up a system to appeal said fines (so that each question over a violation doesn't end in a lawsuit). I am not sure if any such system would be legal without such checks and balances, but it certainly would not be fair without such a check.

Additionally, the more responsibility that a DZ chooses to take on, the more liability that DZ incurs when those safety measures aren't properly enforced. It sounds illogical but a DZ likely would not incur liability from failing to ground a person performing dangerous HP landings if they had not SOP to do so but if that same DZ had a policy to ground people and they fail to act and subsequently someone was injured, they could then potentially be held responsible.

So I kind of doubt that DZs would want to have the extra headaches, legal hassles and liability that would result from such a system. As others have said, truly before we start talking about fines or other ways to make people follow the rules we actually need to ACTIVELY enforce the rules we have using the means at our disposal (i.e. refusal of service/USPA ban).

~Sammy~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you are seriously overthinking things. A DZO can require you to sign whatever he wants before allowing you to patronize his private business and one of those things you sign could be an agreement to pay incurred fines before being allowed to jump again.

If a skydiver refused to pay they wouldn't be able to jump at that dropzone anymore which solves the safety issue even more than fining them.
http://www.mixcloud.com/prajna
http://vimeo.com/avidya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I host a boogie there are a few clauses in the waiver.
One is that we can charge your credit card for medical care if you are incapacitated due to a skydive incident.
Another is that if you don't follow all of the safety rules, you will get your jump tickets ripped up with no refund.

A DZO can pretty much play be their rules. Don't like it, go jump at another DZ. I would like to see someone take a DZO to small claims court over a few jump tickets.

Bolas has been to the Boogie in Belize, and as far as I know followed all of the safety rules. And I think I have the strictest safety rules going in regards to canopy flight.

And where would we put the fine money? How about in a fund to help raise fallen jumpers kids.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming regarding that FAA letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich, I posted this almost a month ago and I think it is a plan that will make a difference now. But you need DZO’s with the balls to do it.

Sparky


19 April

Like Dave said this has nothing to do with education it has to do with attitude and maturity.
The only way to change attitude is with hard reality. This can only come from the DZO’s. Post a short list of realistic canopy rules where is will be seen by everyone that jumps at the DZ. Have manifest announce it every 15 minutes and point it out to all who manifest. At the bottom of the list in big bold letters announce “One strike and you are Out”. Let it be known that in one week or two weeks this will go into effect. And then stand by it with NO exceptions.



My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Robin,

It's either black or white with the two of us. Either we are 100% on the same page, or we couldn't be further apart on an issue. In this case, we are on the same page.

Re-aiming the training is the key to this (long term). In five years, we would be dealing with a jumping population who will look at things differently if we start training everyone differently. All the students, of course, will have a new perspective due to the new training, and the existing jumper today will all be at least 5 years into the sport, and probably able to see the value of the new training, and fall in line. Some shitheads will remain, but such is life.

Despite that agreement, I have (of course) a couple of different ideas on the implementation, and I'll (of course) tell you what they are.

First off, we can keep AFF. It's a great 'hook' for new jumpers, and the training for the first few levels is pretty good as it sits. If a guy was going to make 2 or 3 jumps total in their lives, I wouldn't change much about the program. In the highly supervised environment of those levels, the canopy training is adequate, and gives way to more important things like pull priorities and EPs.

However, once you get into levels 4 on up, all the way to the A license, things should take a drastic turn. Those students are working toward being jumpers, and as such they're going to need the in-depth training in canopy control that a 'skydiver' would need. So we re-vamp the program from that point on.

The other area I have to disagree with you is the rules for the pattern and landings, and how you make them 'stick'. To suggest that each DZ could 'make their own' isn't progress at all, that the status quo. Whatever makes the DZo cringe is against the rules at their DZ, so what flies is dependent on how easily the DZO flinches.

Even circulating a voluntary set of guidelines won't work either, because the DZOs have no reason to follow them. You might think it's a good idea, but if the DZO doesn't, then that DZO isn't 'on program'.

As much as I hate to say it, you have to get the USPA (or the FAA) to make it a rule. Now the DZO has to pay attention because if an incident should arise, and it turns out the DZO didn't enforce 'the rules', that's going to look very bad in court. Following the 'standard industry practice' is the 'get out of jail free card' when it comes to negligence lawsuits. If you do things the way the industry says, and there's still an accident, it can be looked at as 'accidental'. If you break the rules and there's an accident, now it 'negligence'.

Consider this, how many DZOs would put out students without AADs, or with timed out AADs if the BSRs (and FARs) didn't require AADs for every student jumper? With the costs of aqquisition and maintenance of AADs, multiplied by 10 or 15 tandem and student rigs, being what they are, would you be surprised if some DZOs let that slide if they could get away with it?

The answer is 'sure they would'. Somebody somewhere will try anything if the law (or the rules) don't specifically prohibit it. So the solution to getting DZOs to follow along is to put their bacon on the line in court if they don't. Put their money, their DZO, their livelyhood on the line, and they'll do what it takes to follow the 'standard industry practice', and keep that waiver strong and steady if they need it to stand up in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is there anything that you will not argue with? With you it is all “me me”. With your experience level you are not nearly as good as you think. Arrogance and selfishness is not what makes a good canopy pilot. It takes attitude and maturity, knowing your own limitations and understanding the consequence of your actions.
I am done with this, it is not worth the aggravation. I just hope you don’t kill someone because the way you look at thing now makes you dangerous.

Sparky



I think Bolas would start an argument in an empty room......

He seems to be pretty good at evading a simple question as well.

In 20 years he'll prolly be running his own DZ, or the USPA or something.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Is there anything that you will not argue with? With you it is all “me me”. With your experience level you are not nearly as good as you think. Arrogance and selfishness is not what makes a good canopy pilot. It takes attitude and maturity, knowing your own limitations and understanding the consequence of your actions.
I am done with this, it is not worth the aggravation. I just hope you don’t kill someone because the way you look at thing now makes you dangerous.

Sparky



I think Bolas would start an argument in an empty room......

He seems to be pretty good at evading a simple question as well.

In 20 years he'll prolly be running his own DZ, or the USPA or something.


Nah. More playing devils advocate. :)
I'm not evading anything except Twardo's 2 loaded questions. The way there were phrased there was only one answer anyways.

Just seeing alot of:

"Someone's got to do something!!!"

"If it saves one life..."

"Zero Tolerance..."

"If we don't fix it, (boogie man group) will take over and we'll all be unhappy."

Etc. etc.

I'm more concerened about the precedent this sets as it's a slippery slope: rather than enforce existing rules, we're simply adding more when the ones we didn't enforce before surprisingly weren't effective. What's that they say again about insanity? ;)

Yes we've had problems, but had the rules already in place been followed, all but one of those collisions would not have happened. so in reality we're proposing changing rules yet again for a single fatality.

Does this now mean in any aspect of the sport where someone injures/kills someone in a separate subgroup: FS, VRW, Wingsuit, CReW, etc. that we're going to start restricting when/where that group can skydive? And if someone breaks the new rule and an incident happens are we going to then further separate that subgroup?

While some may like the idea of mandated subgroup only loads/DZs, the thought sickens me as it divides us even more.

Will requiring all swoopers to get out on a separate pass prevent swooper to nonswooper collisions? If they're never in the air at the same time, how can they collide? So yes.

Is it overboard and putting us on a dangerous slippery slope of more division, less stress on education, and less tolerance among skydivers. In my opinion, yes. We're putting a bandaid on a tourniquet wound. :S
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm not evading anything except Twardo's 2 loaded questions. The way there were phrased there was only one answer anyways.



So why be afraid to answer them?.


Quote

Just seeing alot of:

"Someone's got to do something!!!"

"If it saves one life..."

"Zero Tolerance..."

"If we don't fix it, (boogie man group) will take over and we'll all be unhappy."



Well its true...something does have to be done...and I've seen some good ideas, and some bad ideas. Discussing them moves us in the right direction to start. And I'm sure a lot of people have learnt something....look at the number of hits on some of these posts, there are a lot of silent readers out there.

Saving a life is a worthy objective don't you think....

Zero tolerance for stupid behaviour should be a given.

And the boogie man can get you if you give him enough reason. DZ's have been shut down in the past for a variety of reasons. Newspaper headlines tend to get noticed, especially by officials and politicians with an axe to grind....

We who have been around the block have seen it before.



Quote

I'm more concerened about the precedent this sets as it's a slippery slope: rather than enforce existing rules, we're simply adding more



Not so, many are calling for clarification and adherence to existing good ideas. Some DZO's will enforce their own ideas.


Quote

Yes we've had problems, but had the rules already in place been followed, all but one of those collisions would not have happened. so in reality we're proposing changing rules yet again for a single fatality.



Again you are dodging the issue of hook turn fatalities. Its not just collisions, although they have been the catalyst for the reaction we are seeing. The issue is death under open canopies....


Quote

Does this now mean in any aspect of the sport where someone injures/kills someone in a separate subgroup: FS, VRW, Wingsuit, CReW, etc. that we're going to start restricting when/where that group can skydive?



Again you are trying to avoid the issue by bringing up these other categories of fatals. Most of them are seperate, one off accidents.

With open canopy death and injury, we are seeing a repeat pattern of exactly the same behaviour. There is no reason or excuse for someone to die under a perfectly open canopy that is functioning properly.

Quote

And if someone breaks the new rule and an incident happens are we going to then further separate that subgroup?



Yep, we'll have subgroups in the cemetary, in the hospital, and in the grounded skydivers club.

Quote

While some may like the idea of mandated subgroup only loads/DZs, the thought sickens me as it divides us even more.



If it means you get your rocks off, why would you care. Warm fuzzies about dividing us don't quite cut it. Admit it, you are afraid something might restrict you while benefitting the majority.....


Quote

Will requiring all swoopers to get out on a separate pass prevent swooper to nonswooper collisions? If they're never in the air at the same time, how can they collide? So yes.



Blue on blue will still happen though, won't it.

Quote

Is it overboard and putting us on a dangerous slippery slope of more division, less stress on education, and less tolerance among skydivers. In my opinion, yes.



A lesser evil than pointless fatalities and permanent disability.......
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


...

As much as I hate to say it, you have to get the USPA (or the FAA) to make it a rule. Now the DZO has to pay attention because if an incident should arise, and it turns out the DZO didn't enforce 'the rules', that's going to look very bad in court. Following the 'standard industry practice' is the 'get out of jail free card' when it comes to negligence lawsuits. If you do things the way the industry says, and there's still an accident, it can be looked at as 'accidental'. If you break the rules and there's an accident, now it 'negligence'.

Consider this, how many DZOs would put out students without AADs, or with timed out AADs if the BSRs (and FARs) didn't require AADs for every student jumper? With the costs of aqquisition and maintenance of AADs, multiplied by 10 or 15 tandem and student rigs, being what they are, would you be surprised if some DZOs let that slide if they could get away with it?

The answer is 'sure they would'. Somebody somewhere will try anything if the law (or the rules) don't specifically prohibit it. So the solution to getting DZOs to follow along is to put their bacon on the line in court if they don't. Put their money, their DZO, their livelyhood on the line, and they'll do what it takes to follow the 'standard industry practice', and keep that waiver strong and steady if they need it to stand up in court.



Dave, I agree. The issue here is that for all the pages and pages of debate about this on the internet, the average semi-experienced skydiver doesn't care and doesn't think it can happen to them. Speaking from the standpoint of running a dropzone, if I even mention the topic of rules people start going on about how I'm an asshole and they are gonna go jump somewhere else, which is ok,... till I don't have anyone left at my dz. Skydivers inherently are "risk accepting" people and that's why there is such backlash.

There has to be trade offs. Lodi is a perfect example, no hook turns, but $15 jumps. Hell, the list of reasons why a lot of people wont jump there is fairly extensive, but people go cause of the cheap jumps. If he was charging the same as everyone else, I am certain it would be a whole different picture.

If rules must exist, they have to be everywhere, there is consistency then and it allows DZOs to say "my hands are tied and so are the guys down the road, what do you want me to do about it... just go jump."

I do feel that there are issues with compatibility from one dropzone to another regarding landing area size and implementation though, and it also seems that at least in regards to a lot of the more recent incidents there were either existing rules not being followed, or extenuating circumstances (such as undersized landing areas).

If in the end, if we need to have more rules, well that's what has to happen, but rules for the sake of rules doesn't help if there is not going to be enforcement. I also agree and have been saying this since the debate first started a few months ago that the issue comes down to education. If we don't educate our new jumpers to make the right decisions we are forcing rules on them that they don't understand and wont have any desire to follow. That just makes it into a "the man" vs "we just want to have fun" situation and no one wins.
~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Admit it, you are afraid something might restrict you while benefitting the majority...



Well, people arguing for the strictest controls (e.g. you can only do turns over 90 alone, in your home, in bed, under the covers, with the lights out.) have a pretty easy position here because 1) yes there will likely be some benefit and 2) they don't have to do anything differently. It's free.

Doing big turns into a main, 90s only, landing area in the middle of a load is not a good idea and shouldn't be allowed.

Doing a big turn in a designated high performance area after you've noted even one lower canopy that could get in your way is not a good idea, and the high man needs to yield.

So what are we left with? Canopies flying where they "shouldn't be", they don't get seen by the HP pilot, the turn is performed, and we have a close call or an incident.

Okay, why didn't the high man see the lower canopy? Is there a way his or her pattern could be changed to provide better visibility of people flying into that airspace? Why was the lower canopy there? Can a jump run and specially designated outs be established that makes it essentially impossible to just end up over there unless you're trying? I think the frustration, mine anyway, comes from people giving up on these questions, throwing their hands up in the air and saying, "We who land straight in could be anywhere... Who knows... We have no idea... Some of us don't even care... but that's not our problem, that's your problem, and so we're putting more rules on you who wish to swoop."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Again you are dodging the issue of hook turn fatalities. Its not just collisions, although they have been the catalyst for the reaction we are seeing. The issue is death under open canopies....



No it's not. It's skydivers injuring and killing other skydivers.

Quote

With open canopy death and injury, we are seeing a repeat pattern of exactly the same behaviour. There is no reason or excuse for someone to die under a perfectly open canopy that is functioning properly.



"There is no reason or excuse for someone to die leaving a perfectly good airplane that is functioning properly."

We get it, the risk is not worth it to you to swoop. that's fine but why limit what risks others choose to accept?

If there was some sort of highly skilled freefall maneuver that resulted in the deaths or injuries of some people, we wouldn't try to disallow you from doing it, only take some steps to minimize the direct risk of those participatings actions to others.

Quote

If it means you get your rocks off, why would you care. Warm fuzzies about dividing us don't quite cut it. Admit it, you are afraid something might restrict you while benefitting the majority.....



I care because I'm not a swooper, a belly jumper, a freeflier, a CReW dog, or a wingsuiter. I'm a skydiver. I like to do it all. :)
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem Bolas is not you neither is it the swoopers.
It's the canopies!
I consider every downsize as putting another round in the chamber of a revolver whilst playing Russian Roulette.

Luigi, when he landed the 36 sq ft canopy had 5 rounds in the gun.

He had no margin for error.

The more you jump pocket rockets the greater the chance the loaded chamber will come up. You increase the number of loaded chambers with the higher wing loading you jump.

Hopefully, when the loaded chamber comes up it will only be for you, not for someone else that isn't playing Russian roulette.
Push it often enough and that chamber will come up!

Just some thoughts from and old fart that has known Obelixtim for 35+ years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No it's not. It's skydivers injuring and killing other skydivers.



I'm surprised you think hook turn fatalities don't count. Are you on the side of skydiving or not?.

Quote

"There is no reason or excuse for someone to die leaving a perfectly good airplane that is functioning properly."



Blah blah blah.....


Quote

We get it, the risk is not worth it to you to swoop. that's fine but why limit what risks others choose to accept?



Because that risk can affect every skydiver. If we ignore known risks, and people keep dying, then we are not doing our jobs.

Have you ever taken responsibility for the lives and safety of others?.

I'd like an honest answer to that question please...

Quote

If there was some sort of highly skilled freefall maneuver that resulted in the deaths or injuries of some people, we wouldn't try to disallow you from doing it, only take some steps to minimize the direct risk of those participatings actions to others.



Absolute rubbish.

The history of skydiving has many examples of high risk or dangerous behaviour being banned. The evolution of equipment, training and better practise has seen a consistent decrease in risk, and a huge improvement in safety.

Except for open canopy fatalities. Nothing has been done about this, and I'm not sure why this bucks the trend. But it has to stop.

Quote

I care because I'm not a swooper, a belly jumper, a freeflier, a CReW dog, or a wingsuiter. I'm a skydiver. I like to do it all.



I don't think you care at all if your posts are any indication. You just like to argue the point with no real substance to your argument.

You still have a lot of learning to do if you really want to be a good skydiver.....
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
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.

0