Blacklisting skydivers [was: hard impact at nationals]

[RichLees 0]

With computers and USPA backing, can't we centralise records of who did how many jumps and where? I'm assuming all jumpers are USPA members.

Also, a DZ could black-mark a dubious jumper so all DZs can quickly check and accept or reject a jumper's business. If you really don't want his business or you want to reward outstanding stupidity, pull his reserve handle. As for helping our young heroes, I would
think that helping them learn up high would be better than just saying no. That's what most courses try to do. And if HE says no, pull his reserve handle - having ensured there's no one standing in the line of fire

[likearock 2]

Quote

With computers and USPA backing, can't we centralise records of who did how many jumps and where? I'm assuming all jumpers are USPA members.

Also, a DZ could black-mark a dubious jumper so all DZs can quickly check and accept or reject a jumper's business.

What you're suggesting is to maintain an electronic blacklist for all skydivers that have been judged to be "unsafe" by some standard. Ultimately, that's the only way DZO enforcement would have any teeth since without it, the problem jumper can simply go DZ shopping (as was the case in this incident).

Of course, implementation of that kind of policy opens up a whole set of other questions. Who puts the names on the list? What is the criteria? What's the policy for getting your name removed from the list?

Are we as a community really okay with that kind of measure?

[Hambone 0]

Quote

Quote

With computers and USPA backing, can't we centralise records of who did how many jumps and where? I'm assuming all jumpers are USPA members.

Also, a DZ could black-mark a dubious jumper so all DZs can quickly check and accept or reject a jumper's business.

What you're suggesting is to maintain an electronic blacklist for all skydivers that have been judged to be "unsafe" by some standard. Ultimately, that's the only way DZO enforcement would have any teeth since without it, the problem jumper can simply go DZ shopping (as was the case in this incident).

Of course, implementation of that kind of policy opens up a whole set of other questions. Who puts the names on the list? What is the criteria? What's the policy for getting your name removed from the list?

Are we as a community really okay with that kind of measure?

This is the "solution" that seems to make the most sense to me. Certainly it is not perfect, and your points are very well take with regard to being put on the list or taken off the list. It would see that the solution would be to not call it a "black list" but a warning list.

Basically the entry would say "xxx Jumper came to my dropzone with x canopy s/he is unsafe for x reasons, Date, time, location." Clearly the person would have to be told that they were on the list. Maybe the solution is that they never come off the list but instead their entries are updated and moved to a different section that would state that they have started making better decisions, gotten the necessary training, become more careful etc.

This would seem to be the most prudent course of action. If you make it searchable by names, checking this list becomes part of checking in unfamiliar jumpers to your DZ. May take an additional 5 min. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

Yeah...You need to grow up. -Skymama

[DSE 5]

Quote

This is the "solution" that seems to make the most sense to me. Certainly it is not perfect, and your points are very well take with regard to being put on the list or taken off the list. It would see that the solution would be to not call it a "black list" but a warning list.

Basically the entry would say "xxx Jumper came to my dropzone with x canopy s/he is unsafe for x reasons, Date, time, location." Clearly the person would have to be told that they were on the list. Maybe the solution is that they never come off the list but instead their entries are updated and moved to a different section that would state that they have started making better decisions, gotten the necessary training, become more careful etc.

This would seem to be the most prudent course of action. If you make it searchable by names, checking this list becomes part of checking in unfamiliar jumpers to your DZ. May take an additional 5 min. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

Who moderates this database?

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

This is the "solution" that seems to make the most sense to me. Certainly it is not perfect, and your points are very well take with regard to being put on the list or taken off the list. It would see that the solution would be to not call it a "black list" but a warning list.

Basically the entry would say "xxx Jumper came to my dropzone with x canopy s/he is unsafe for x reasons, Date, time, location." Clearly the person would have to be told that they were on the list. Maybe the solution is that they never come off the list but instead their entries are updated and moved to a different section that would state that they have started making better decisions, gotten the necessary training, become more careful etc.

This would seem to be the most prudent course of action. If you make it searchable by names, checking this list becomes part of checking in unfamiliar jumpers to your DZ. May take an additional 5 min. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

Who moderates this database?

Who ever "owns" that database better have good libel and slander insurance.

Remster

[jtiflyer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is the "solution" that seems to make the most sense to me. Certainly it is not perfect, and your points are very well take with regard to being put on the list or taken off the list. It would see that the solution would be to not call it a "black list" but a warning list.

Basically the entry would say "xxx Jumper came to my dropzone with x canopy s/he is unsafe for x reasons, Date, time, location." Clearly the person would have to be told that they were on the list. Maybe the solution is that they never come off the list but instead their entries are updated and moved to a different section that would state that they have started making better decisions, gotten the necessary training, become more careful etc.

This would seem to be the most prudent course of action. If you make it searchable by names, checking this list becomes part of checking in unfamiliar jumpers to your DZ. May take an additional 5 min. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

Who moderates this database?

Who ever "owns" that database better have good libel and slander insurance.

what happens when you bang the dzo's wife or daughter

[peek 21]

Quote

Who ever "owns" that database better have good libel and slander insurance.

Interesting, that's one of the points "topdocker" tried to make in post #160, and a couple of people jumped all over him. Maybe this is a good point. I think it is.

Attorneys would need to be consulted to be sure. We have some that frequent these forums. Perhaps they will comment.

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

Quote

Who ever "owns" that database better have good libel and slander insurance.

Interesting, that's one of the points "topdocker" tried to make in post #160, and a couple of people jumped all over him. Maybe this is a good point. I think it is.

If you're referring to me, get your facts straight. I didn't "jump all over him", nor did I even debate his position on it. In fact I pointed out in my reply to him specifically that I did not take the same position as the person who was advocating the database idea.

I "jumped all over him" for his ludicrous statement claiming that monitoring idiotic behavior on the DZ doesn't happen and wouldn't be effective if it did happen. Those statements were blatantly false and I called him on it.

But I'll give you a pass on this one.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[billvon 3,008]

Let's stop with the personal arguments and keep the focus on the incident, please.

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

Let's stop with the personal arguments and keep the focus on the incident, please.

Agreed, Bill. However, I feel I have the right to refute statements when they are incorrect and pointed at me. I'm sure you would demand the same if misstatements were being made about you.

But back on point, if local enforcement of common sense and open communication between DZ's were employed a bit better, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation.

You can't regulate stupidity, but you sure can ground it.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[jonstark 8]

Quote

Who ever "owns" that database better have good libel and slander insurance.

Why? Can't one's opinion be published as such, merely an opinion? It is not an indictment or statement of fact calling someone's behavior a matter of concern for their safety or that of others.

"I have concerns for his safety." is different from "He's unsafe."

jon

[yoink 321]

Quote

Quote

Who ever "owns" that database better have good libel and slander insurance.

Interesting, that's one of the points "topdocker" tried to make in post #160, and a couple of people jumped all over him. Maybe this is a good point. I think it is.

I don't see that.

The owner of the database doesn't necesssarily have to be responsible for the data in there if it's written by someone else.

The DZOs would each have a login and this is tagged to each entry they make in the database by default.
In the event of a dispute they're the ones making the call and presumably have the reasons typed out there for all to see.
Noone is suggesting it's a single 'ban this guy!' field. Transparency would have to be a big part of it though.

You (the USPA) could also protect yourself by having developed a process by which you can get downgraded if you find yourself on the database, and have that mailed to anyone who ends up on it - sort of like a Driving Course for 1st time motoring offenses.

There are dozens of ways to counter it.

Fear of litigation is a poor reason to not try and stop dangerous skydiving.

[Trae 1]

in reply to "The DZOs would each have a login and this is tagged to each entry they make in the database by default.
In the event of a dispute they're the ones making the call and presumably have the reasons typed out there for all to see.
Noone is suggesting it's a single 'ban this guy!' field. Transparency would have to be a big part of it though. "
..........................................

There's a bit of a precedent for this type of networked record taking/sharing .
Not sure if it happened in your part of the world but during the mid to late 80's base jumping skydivers were put on a register and banned from skydiving in Australia.
It was fairly effective at keeping people out of the sky but created a lot of distrust for quite a while.
It also taught a heavy disregard for authority.

Many otherwise harmless skydivers were victimised and hounded by the powers that be.
These same "powers that be" also readily grounded people for doing hook-turns , dumping low , and often for no apparent reason other than the CI didn't like the young wild ones.

One stormy evening our CI's diary somehow came to be in our hands for perusal .
It was amazing what this guy had written about everyone who had ever visited the DZ.
It was like a gestapo hit list with totally outrageous assumptions about people's character.

We had the funniest time seeing what had been written about ourselves.

This same CI who had hounded and grounded me and my mates for hook turning 7cell F111 230's happily oversaw the canopy carnage of the 90's and 00's as a safety officer and elder in the sport. Snoring and dribbling at the wheel this guy was.

If there's gunna be a database for bozo's then hopefully the bozo's won't be running it.

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Who ever "owns" that database better have good libel and slander insurance.

Interesting, that's one of the points "topdocker" tried to make in post #160, and a couple of people jumped all over him. Maybe this is a good point. I think it is.

I don't see that.

The owner of the database doesn't necesssarily have to be responsible for the data in there if it's written by someone else.

The DZOs would each have a login and this is tagged to each entry they make in the database by default.
In the event of a dispute they're the ones making the call and presumably have the reasons typed out there for all to see.
Noone is suggesting it's a single 'ban this guy!' field. Transparency would have to be a big part of it though.

You (the USPA) could also protect yourself by having developed a process by which you can get downgraded if you find yourself on the database, and have that mailed to anyone who ends up on it - sort of like a Driving Course for 1st time motoring offenses.

There are dozens of ways to counter it.

Fear of litigation is a poor reason to not try and stop dangerous skydiving.

Please enter your TSA USPA redress number here:[______]

Remster

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

There are dozens of ways to counter it.

Fear of litigation is a poor reason to not try and stop dangerous skydiving.

If I, as a DZO, thought the guy was going to sue me for my opinion of his performance or attitude, its really simple....YOU, my son, are no longer welcome here. go somewhere else.

Two birds, one stone.
-No idiocy at my DZ
-No lawsuit

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

Quote

There are dozens of ways to counter it.

Fear of litigation is a poor reason to not try and stop dangerous skydiving.

If I, as a DZO, thought the guy was going to sue me for my opinion of his performance or attitude, its really simple....YOU, my son, are no longer welcome here. go somewhere else.

Two birds, one stone.
-No idiocy at my DZ
-No lawsuit

Funny how Pops has a way of simplifying things.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Attorneys would need to be consulted to be sure. We have some that frequent these forums. Perhaps they will comment.

DZO’s are running a private business and as such they have the right to refuse service to anyone. There is no need for attorneys to be involved. If in the DZO’s opinion the guy is a problem he has the right to ground him or throw him off the DZ.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[DSE 5]

Quote

DZO’s are running a private business and as such they have the right to refuse service to anyone. There is no need for attorneys to be involved. If in the DZO’s opinion the guy is a problem he has the right to ground him or throw him off the DZ.

Sparky

True...but look how far that got Denny's with the African Americans (still the largest discrimination lawsuit to date, I believe) and other private businesses that have been sued for mega bux. The spectre alone would nail DZO's to the wall.

From a different side...maybe a DZO doesn't like what someone posts on DZ.com, so they take it out on them via this "list."

I agree there is a problem, and in today's world it's a silly one with seemingly simple solutions. But branding folks with a scarlet letter doesn't seem to be the answer.

[ghost47 18]

Quote

True...but look how far that got Denny's with the African Americans (still the largest discrimination lawsuit to date, I believe) and other private businesses that have been sued for mega bux.

Two different balls of wax. There are laws preventing discrimination by private businesses against certain classes (blacks, women, etc.). There are no laws preventing discrimination against skydivers with overly small canopies.

Though, if the person you're banning happens to be part of a protected class, there's always the threat that they'll sue a DZ saying that that's why they're on there.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Attorneys would need to be consulted to be sure. We have some that frequent these forums. Perhaps they will comment.

DZO’s are running a private business and as such they have the right to refuse service to anyone. There is no need for attorneys to be involved. If in the DZO’s opinion the guy is a problem he has the right to ground him or throw him off the DZ.

I think that misses the point. Of course a DZO has the right to kick someone off his DZ. It becomes quite another thing when a pissed-off or vengeful DZO can effectively ban a jumper from the entire sport, anywhere. The potential for abuse of a "ban database" is huge. We already know examples of DZOs who kick jumpers off their DZs for jumping at a competing DZ, or fucking the wrong girl, or questioning safety, or being an asshole, etc., etc.. Do we really want that kind of shit to expand into a nation-wide, even world-wide, database?

So: banning someone not just from a DZ, but (for all practical purposes) from the sport entirely? (Do we really want to become the CSPA? ) But seriously, I'd be less worried about someone getting sued, and more worried about someone getting shot.

[nigel99 504]

Why not go down the driving license route? If a system was put in place where you had to prove proficiency to progress, much like the normal skydiving licenses although those are generic and include freefall.

You could have basic classifications, a level of currency should be required to maintain a license otherwise you drop back a level or something similar.

Another approach would simply be for USPA dz's to require visiting jumpers to have a note in their logbook signed off by the previous dz along with contact details for the person signing off. Then if something looks fishy the previous dz can be consulted.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Tatetatetate 0]

This is BS? Why? because a DZ I jumped at I fell out with the DZO. NOTHING to do with ANYTHING in the air. It was politics on the ground.

To retain customers they would threaten people with blacklist bans for the entire country. They were very clever and nasty with it telling you that their DZ was the only place you could jump. As you were not welcome elsewhere. A lot of people believed them and simply stayed put through all the BS they suffered.
As a parting shot to when I fell out with the DZO they said they'd ban me forever. Next week? I rolled up to a DZ which I was apparently banned at due to being put on the list....

Jumped fine...


People saying true things they didn't like online ~ threatened with a blacklist ban.

People complaining online - true things - threatened with a black list ban

People organising trips to other DZs - threatened with a blacklist ban


There is MASSIVE potential to abuse this system and therefore it is probably better to keep it as it is right now.

[Tatetatetate 0]

Quote

From a different side...maybe a DZO doesn't like what someone posts on DZ.com, so they take it out on them via this "list."

This is what happens over at UKskydiver.co.uk

DZOs scour the boards and look for anything even remotely negative said about their DZs and they get banned for weeks at a time.

A couple of people I know have been banned for completely innocent posts.

Like asking questions about clothing. Or asking about a different DZ, sort of A/S/L ~ A/P/E (altitute/plane/equipment).


The DZOs have it completely wrong though, instead of improving and correcting the issues people have they ban people instead.

There are some notorious DZs who do this.... heh they only have about 20 regular jumpers because people go else where. Its funny in a sad way because days the DZ looks busy is because tandems bring their families along, there are barely any experinced skydivers. Just TIs and cameramen.

[Tatetatetate 0]

Quote

Another approach would simply be for USPA dz's to require visiting jumpers to have a note in their logbook signed off by the previous dz along with contact details for the person signing off. Then if something looks fishy the previous dz can be consulted.

Even this is dodgy. I had a DZO say I'd falsified a couple of jumps at a rival DZ. They were signed by a D cert who is real. The thing is he wasn't staff at the DZ he was just somebody on the same lift who was JM. The CCI and instructors at some DZs often refuse to sign your log book if they were not on the same lift with you.

[Jumpdude 0]

Quote

With computers and USPA backing, can't we centralize records of who did how many jumps and where? I'm assuming all jumpers are USPA members.

Also, a DZ could black-mark a dubious jumper so all DZs can quickly check and accept or reject a jumper's business. If you really don't want his business or you want to reward outstanding stupidity, pull his reserve handle. As for helping our young heroes, I would
think that helping them learn up high would be better than just saying no. That's what most courses try to do. And if HE says no, pull his reserve handle - having ensured there's no one standing in the line of fire

You would assume incorrectly Sir, There are a bunch of active Skydivers who are not USPA members. They choose to not renew their memberships for various reasons, the most common reason that I know of is to not be affiliated with an organization that has ties to sLyride. Besides that, a jumper who has been through the training, has had a USPA license and lets it expire, and not actively having that card in your pocket does not make you a better skydiver. You're ability will be the same, card or not! The outcome of that jumpers skydives is the same either way.

And pulling someone's reserve handle?? Stupid is as stupid does! Sounds like two girls getting in a fight and pulling hair. Didn't accomplish a damn thing other than made someone mad.

Refuse to Lose!!!
Failure is NOT an option!
1800skyrideripoff.com
Nashvilleskydiving.org