Re: [Jimbo] Snohomish Jumper Dies in Low Turn Mishap - 5 March 2005

[Zenister 0]

wise? no..
up to the (adult) jumper? absolutely.
you cant legislate against stupidity.
you could just as easily argue that bailing out of a functional aircraft isnt 'wise'.

quite likely you'll take risks i consider stupid, quite possibly i'll do things you might consider completely insane... i'll be happy tell you so if you ask my opinion(or even if you don’t if you happen to be someone i care about) and i'll certainly do what i can to help mitigate whatever 'unacceptable (for me) risk' i see you taking (offer training, technical advise etc assuming I have some means to make it ‘safer’) but it is not my responsibility to stop you, or my right to legislate restrictions in a misguided attempt protect you from yourself.....

smoking isnt wise, drinking isnt wise, high cholesterol, high fat diets are not wise, walking alone at night isnt wise.…. getting the point yet? As an adult those decisions are yours alone to make… personally i dont think jumping rounds is very 'wise', ive watched enough oak enimas to decide it was pretty stupid practice, so i wont do it again but ymmv. i'm not your mother, nor am i trying to live your life for you...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

wise? no..

Why not?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[chrisgr 0]

Why are you still jumping a Stiletto 150 @ 1.37 lbs/ft?

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

you cant legislate against stupidity.

Sure you can. Drinking laws, speed limits, motorcycle helment laws, suicide laws, etc. There are many instances where we legislate against an adult's "free will."

By your logic, jumpers should be allowed to pull as low as they wish; hey, it's their life!

Rules are there exactly to help protect people against their own stupidity. They're not perfect but they're an attempt to mitigate potential damages. Would wingload BSRs be appropriate for every jumper? No, there will always be very talented jumpers who progress ahead of the curve. Will wingload BSRs save people who would otherwise have died. Absolutely. Will they guarantee no one will die. No, people have died low turning a Manta.

Edited cuz i cant spel.

[craddock 0]

Quote

Will wingload BSRs save people who would otherwise have died. Absolutely

That's your opinion. But to be fair it might save some. However, with a larger canopy people will turn lower and have even less margin for error. They can try and make it further back from a long spot. They can get bored and do other dangerous things. As far as turning low I had a pd 190 that I could hook real low. When I got my 107, I could be off of my optimum hook height by more than the total I would hook the pd190 from and be fine. I was much more dangerous hooking that pd190 from 100 feet than being a bit to low on the 107. I did that intentionaly.

Would it save lifes to ban all square canopies?

would it save lifes to limit to 200 sq ft. and a 1.1 loading on all jumpers and ban swooping?

Would it save lifes to ban skydiving?

What makes one group less important than another?

this thread is getting off topic for this forum.

Sorry.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Would it save lifes to ban all square canopies? I don't know, but I didn't suggest that.

would it save lifes to limit to 200 sq ft. and a 1.1 loading on all jumpers and ban swooping? Lower wingloading would save lives, but I didn't suggest either a perpetual limitation on wing loadings or banning swooping. Swoop on brother.

Would it save lifes to ban skydiving? We're all gonna die someday, so no, banning skydiving wouldn't save lives. Oh wait, yes it would. But, I didn't suggest banning skydiving.

What makes one group less important than another? No where in my post is there any discriminatory treatment of any group.

this thread is getting off topic for this forum. I guess.

Sorry. No problem, you're forgiven.

My post wasn't about any of the points you raised, it was only that there are numerous instances of rules which try and mitigate risk. I also said that there are no guarantees, if you want to kill yourself in this sport, you will. This sport is all about risk mitigation.

[The111 1]

In some ways I agree with Zenister. Part of me thinks it isn't fair to tell any adult not to take a risk they're willing to.

However, there is a difference between prohibition and regulation. The former is saying "You can never jump a 2.0 WL". The latter is saying "You can jump a 2.0 WL when you prove you are ready." I wouldn't mind regulation personally (unless it stopped me from jumping my wingsuit ), but I still am not sure I entirely agree with it. But I do agree it would be functional, if not entirely fair or representative of "freedom". But then again, DZ's are privately owned businesses and we are not guaranteed freedom on them anyway. Anyone with any amount of jumps is free to buy a plane, make his own 90 sq ft canopy, and jump it onto his own land. But he won't have to do any of those things, as long as there are gear stores that sell his unqualified ass the canopy, and DZ's that allow him to jump it.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[Ron 10]

Quote

However, with a larger canopy people will turn lower and have even less margin for error.

And they will have more time to react due to the lower speed. And if they hit they will hit slower, and the kinetic energy will be less and do less damage.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[wmw999 2,439]

Quote

with a larger canopy people will turn lower and have even less margin for error. They can try and make it further back from a long spot. They can get bored and do other dangerous things.

In the current context, maybe. Back when everyone had big canopies, those things weren't happening. There were very few fatalities under good canopies -- probably fewer than 1/year from low turns and the like.

We've advanced the technology and the high end of performance without requiring education to give people safe access to all that technology.

A checkout class, kind of like the check ride for airplanes, might well be a way to go. But there is clearly a change in the environment -- people weren't more risk-averse in the past (trust me!), and they aren't stupider now.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[craddock 0]

Quote

Back when everyone had big canopies, those things weren't happening. There were very few fatalities under good canopies -- probably fewer than 1/year from low turns and the like.

And I don't deny this. But there are other factors to consider. Are there more people jumping today than back in the day? Take everything into perspective. Are more people going to get hurt with smaller canopies? Yes. I accept that risk.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[wmw999 2,439]

Quote

And I don't deny this. But there are other factors to consider. Are there more people jumping today than back in the day? Take everything into perspective. Are more people going to get hurt with smaller canopies? Yes. I accept that risk.

I'm sure there are more people. Interesting, though, that there aren't more people riding malfunctions down with the same increase in frequency, or in people cutting away too low for their reserves to activate.

Only landing accidents have increased that much. Cypres fires, too, but, well, I think that's partly device dependency.

When cars only went 15 mph there wasn't much in the way of licensing requirements. Now they can go 100 mph. There are laws against going that fast, and where you can go that fast legally, there are normally educational/experience requirements.

Maybe, just maybe, there is increased risk. Maybe, just maybe, it hasn't been quantified yet. And maybe, just maybe, saying "I accept the risk" is easy to say, and easy to copy someone else saying.

And maybe, just maybe, we don't have enough education out there for people to really understand that risk. Because just watching someone else doesn't really do it.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mjosparky 4]

What is your point?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[billvon 2,989]

>Yes. I accept that risk.

Let's say you ran a DZ. An old guy stopped by one day who wanted to go up to 12,500 and jump without a JM. He was a paratrooper, see, and made 5 SL jumps back in 1955 under rounds. You told him he had to go through a course.

"What? I was jumping before you were born, and I jumped in much more dangerous conditions! I accept the risk and I demand you let me jump."

Would you let him make the jump?

[craddock 0]

Nope. Think.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[billvon 2,989]

> Nope.

You would tell him that he can't take a risk he fully accepts? Why not? He's demonstrated he can jump out of an airplane, and he's said he accepts the risk. Who made you his mother?

[craddock 0]

Bill what the hell are you talking about? No DZ's will allow this but most every DZ I have jumped at has allowed me to jump beyond the parameters of your proposed wingloading restriction. Clearly their is a major difference.

A person who has never jumped a modern BOC, RSL equiped, three ring release, AAD equipped rig with square canopies, and has never freefalled; who is needing be educating has nothing to do with wingloading resrictions. He just needs to take a course and pass a written test. You want me to do that to jump my canopy? I am OK with that Bill.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[billvon 2,989]

>who is needing be educating has nothing to do with wingloading
> resrictions. He just needs to take a course and pass a written test. You
> want me to do that to jump my canopy? I am OK with that Bill.

Good! Then we are in agreement. See my BSR proposal. If you can take a course and pass a test, you should be able to jump whatever you want.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

>who is needing be educating has nothing to do with wingloading
> resrictions. He just needs to take a course and pass a written test. You
> want me to do that to jump my canopy? I am OK with that Bill.

Good! Then we are in agreement. See my BSR proposal. If you can take a course and pass a test, you should be able to jump whatever you want.

so when (i'm not going to say 'if' because it is a 'when') someone who has taken the course and passed the test, and has a shiney gold sticker on their license STILL hammers in, you dont believe the exact same people will not raise the exact same cry?

"people are DYING! we've got to DO something, anything! one death is to many!"

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[craddock 0]

Quote

Good! Then we are in agreement.

Sorry Bill we are not. Once again you read out of the post what you want to. Nobody does it better.(several are right up there with you though)

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

so when (i'm not going to say 'if' because it is a 'when') someone who has taken the course and passed the test, and has a shiney gold sticker on their license STILL hammers in, you dont believe the exact same people will not raise the exact same cry?

"people are DYING! we've got to DO something, anything! one death is to many!"

Not the exact same people, but some smaller subset of them. Depending of course on what standard was implemented. Some have suggested a pretty tight net, others (myself, Bill's Take 5, and others) were more about removing the obviously bad ideas - say the guy in the current thread who wanted to jump a Diablo @1.5 with 40 jumps.

I generally side with the 'let people risk it' approach, but a reasonable standard can be implemented without terrible consequences.

[billvon 2,989]

>Sorry Bill we are not.

You said that:

1. You thought education was the important part
2. You would have no heartache with passing a test before jumping a high wingloading

Those are the core of my proposal. (You did read it, right?)

[billvon 2,989]

> someone who has taken the course and passed the test, and has
>a shiney gold sticker on their license STILL hammers in, you dont
> believe the exact same people will not raise the exact same cry?

No, I don't. When 2 people a year are dying from low turns, then there will not be the same cry that there is now.

Want to avoid regulation? Get out there and prevent these deaths from happening. Nothing you or I can do will cause this kind of regulation to come to be. But if every skydiver has a friend who has died because they were under a canopy they couldn't fly - you can bet something will be done, and it may not be to your liking.

Right now we have the luxury of not having 40 people a year die from low turns. In other words, we have time to figure out a solution. Once the number of people dying starts to skyrocket even more than it has now, people will scream "Do something! Anything! Even if it's wrong!" Better, I think, to do something right before we get to that point.

[craddock 0]

Bill,
I don't have time to argue right now if you are not going to read my post. Or should I say not read out of them what you want. Please go back and read what I said. (you did read it right)

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[craddock 0]

The main problem I have with your proposal is this

"Once the jumper accomplishes these to the coach's satisfaction, he gets signed off to the next level. "

That is way to open to interpretation which some believe could become a legal issue. Before the talk about this test becoming administered by a coach it was to be by an S&TA. Of those that I have discussed several wanted nothing to do with waiving a BSR for wingloading because of the legal ramifications that might come with it. It would be one thing to have a black & white test but the "Once the jumper accomplishes these to the coach's satisfaction, he gets signed off to the next level. " part is not going to fly with everybody. And I don't know how well it would fly in the courts in the event of a lawsuit.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

That's your opinion. But to be fair it might save some. However, with a larger canopy people will turn lower and have even less margin for error.

Nope, that's a fact. I was there in "the old days" when the squares were big and slow. Stupid stuff would embarass you, maybe break your leg, but not like the carnage I've seen the last ten years.