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

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

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.

You've only been around for 29 years, what could you possibly know? You just don't want people to have fun.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Zenister 0]

Quote

> 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.

so what happens when/if the numbers dont change significantly.. the ratio may, but the number isnt likely to fluctuate much.. particularly as more people are flying high performance wings..

how many car accidents were there when there were only 100 people driving cars? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000?

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

[billvon 3,031]

>That is way to open to interpretation which some believe could
>become a legal issue.

It's no more of an issue than signing someone off for their water training. What if someone takes water training, passes, then drowns? Wouldn't people sue the instructor? Well, sure, they might, but it hasn't been a problem. The primary reason it hasn't been a problem is because water training helps _prevent_ things that cause lawsuits (i.e. drownings.)

If you want to avoid legal issues, reduce fatalities and injuries.

[craddock 0]

Bill try and be a bit more realistic. It is not uncommon for people to be signed off for water training without ever having the training.

Quote

he primary reason it hasn't been a problem is because water training helps _prevent_ things that cause lawsuits(i.e. drowning)

I wonder how much you say you actually believe yourself.

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

[wmw999 2,485]

Not everyone is trying as hard as they can to bypass all that inconvenient safety crap.

I actually believe some of that stuff. I've been around the block a number of times, so it's not just my wide-eyed innocent newbie-ness.

I understand you have a different level of risk tolerance than most people. However, you can't move the industry standard over to where you prefer to be. There will always be a place for people who are willing to go way past the boundaries, but it's a hard place to find, and a hard one to get to. I don't really see the problem in that -- it should be harder to push the boundaries in dangerous activities.

It's not impossible. There are outlaw dropzones around; there is BASE; you (and this is directed at anyone who thinks that rules exist only to constrict - not just the person I'm replying to) can probably find a pilot who will take you up if you try hard enough. But it doesn't have to be easy. Why should 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)

[craddock 0]

Quote

Not everyone is trying as hard as they can to bypass all that inconvenient safety crap.

Where does this come from? Besides being opposed to a WL restriction where do you get off? That's one thing I am opposed to. What else am I trying to bypass? Please don't make stuff up.

If you are reffering to the water training, you need to go back and read my post. . I just stated that many people to not have it. I never advocated that. Bill claims the reason we don't have a lot of drownings is because of the training. That's bullshit. We don't have a lot of drownings because most people don't land in the water, and most people know how to swim if they do.

Do we not have a lot of night jump fatalities because of the required night jump for a D?

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

Quote

Not everyone is trying as hard as they can to bypass all that inconvenient safety crap.

Where does this come from? Besides being opposed to a WL restriction where do you get off? That's one thing I am opposed to. What else am I trying to bypass? Please don't make stuff up.

It probably comes from an observation that your logic for objecting to a WL restriction would seem to apply to every single safety rule out there. Correct me if I misstate but I think your reasoning goes along the lines of "I'm the only one who'll be hurt & I accept the risk, so I should be allowed to do what I want."

I'm just curious, why don't you object to the low pull BSRs?

[obelixtim 150]

Crad......you are copping flak for a reason....

I see people with tons of experience who care for the sport, and who have hands on experience of dealing with the aftermath of severe impacts.....They are speaking sheer common sense in an effort to alleviate the consequences of screw ups.....

I don't understand why you have a problem with that.......

You seem to be nit picking for the sake of it.......and peoples freedom to smash themselves up stops when it impinges on others freedom to enjoy skydiving without having to deal with smashed up bodies or have their livelihood put at risk......

What about some positive ideas to solve the problem.........

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[craddock 0]

Quote

Correct me if I misstate but I think your reasoning goes along the lines of "I'm the only one who'll be hurt & I accept the risk, so I should be allowed to do what I want."

No, I have stated my objection and why I think there is a problem with the proposal. Consider yourself corrected.

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]

Quote

I see people with tons of experience who care for the sport, and who have hands on experience of dealing with the aftermath of severe impacts.....They are speaking sheer common sense in an effort to alleviate the consequences of screw ups.

Are you making the assumption that I do not have hands on experience of severe impacts. I was first on seen to my 3rd witnessed swooping fatality in less than 12 months. He hit the water at the same angle as I watched my friend die a month prior. That was just one year and none would have been limited by Bills proposal although I should have prevented one. I may not have been in the sport 20 years but that does not meen a can't have a valid opinion. I pointed out my objections with Bills proposal based on my opinion as a skydiver and instructor.

If it was so common sense why has the USPA objected to a winloading restriction in the past?

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

[wmw999 2,485]

Quote

We don't have a lot of drownings because most people don't land in the water, and most people know how to swim if they do.

Back when most canopies were round, landing in the water was a lot more likely, and generally dangerous. Most people wore boots to jump then, too. 16 people died in Ohio nearly 40 years ago from drowning.

Water briefings do, in fact, help with that. They provide education on how to get ready so that you stand less of a chance of being trapped in your gear. You can't swim with your gear. It didn't help the guys in Ohio because most of them were a LONG way from shore due to jumping out when they couldn't see the ground.

Mandatory water gear at dropzones with lots of water can also help. The idea is to demystify the water landing, so that if it happens, the person doesn't panic. Panic kills, and panic is often due to ignorance, and a (at least perceived) need to deal with a situation in a hurry. Works that way in some of the landing accidents, too.

It's probably lucky that canopies are mostly square now -- step-through hardware is a problem in the water. How do you get out of your rig quickly when you can't just unsnap the leg straps?

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)

[Ron 10]

Quote

No, I have stated my objection and why I think there is a problem with the proposal. Consider yourself corrected.

You didn't answer what you think about the pull altitudes BSR.

You seem to avoid answering any question that weakens your right to stomp around and say, "But its my RIGHT!"

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

[craddock 0]

That is the "Pot calling the kettel black" if I have ever seen it Ron.

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

[billvon 3,031]

>That was just one year and none would have been limited by Bills proposal . . .

You don't feel that education could have prevented any of them? I disagree; I think education is the _only_ way to prevent such incidents.

[Ron 10]

Quote

That is the "Pot calling the kettel black" if I have ever seen it Ron.

Have you asked me a question I never answered?

So, how do you feel about the pull altitude BSR's?

Are those OK, or do you think those are stupid as well?

Are you good enough to pull lower than what most would consider safe?

Go ahead answer....

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

[billvon 3,031]

> Bill claims the reason we don't have a lot of drownings is because of the
> training. That's bullshit. We don't have a lot of drownings because most
> people don't land in the water, and most people know how to swim if
> they do.

It is due to the training. People now know not to cut away "at ten feet to avoid drowning" and they can escape from their gear. As a result, the hundreds of jumpers who land in bodies of water from shallow streams to oceans tend to not drown. We had around one a year at Otay alone; Otay is next to a lake.

Today's assignment - research why the water training requirement was put in place. (Hint - it had something to do with Lake Erie.)

[craddock 0]

Great. You also acknowlegde that people don't land in the water much anymore. Yet are you still implying that I said breifings could not help. Of course they can. I agree with your whole post.

I'm still trying to understand this though " Not everyone is trying as hard as they can to bypass all that inconvenient safety crap."

What is all that safety crap I am trying to bypass? You have never been around me with a student. I am all about safety and education.

Thanks for the label Wendy.

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]

Quote

You don't feel that education could have prevented any of them?

Fuck Bill. Quit putting words in peoples mouth!

The way I read your proposal. A canopy control course is not required, but offered. I think we need much more emphasize on education. Not less.

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

[wmw999 2,485]

Quote

I think we need much more emphasize on education. Not less.

Bill's proposal doesn't require a canopy control course (they're not offered at all DZs). But it does list a set of canopy skills for transition to the next license level, and a maximum wing loading for each license level.

I would prefer to see a "test out" option, where someone could show that with additional training or practice, they did, in fact, have superior skills.

But given the number of people who seem to be unable to deal with late-developing landing problems, I think that something is a good idea. Just as it became a USPA requirement to have water gear on your rig if your DZ had significant water within 1 mile (even if you didn't plan on landing there, and even if that meant additional cost).

What are your ideas for helping the current situation, where a very significant percentage of the deaths appears to be due to people's inability to deal with situations they put themselves into? The two approaches I can see are:
a. educate them so the vast majority no longer put themselves into that situation. This requires infrastructure in the form of qualified canopy instruction at a fairly high level, given the aerodynamic nature of the most aggressive canopies. Should it put DZs out of business that can't provide this education?

b. prevent most people from having the tools to kill themselves quite as easily with a late-developing landing situation, so they get more than one opportunity to learn the hard way. A wingloading BSR is one way of doing this.

Tearing down the majority of suggestions is going to lead to the perception that you're against all of them.

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]

Yes Ron plenty, just not in this thread.

Quote

So, how do you feel about the pull altitude BSR's?

Well I did not know there was a debat on these. I did not know there was a problem. I would be more than happy to hear both sides of the issue and give you an answer.

Quote

Are those OK, or do you think those are stupid as well?

I have yet to call anything stupid

Quote

Are you good enough to pull lower than what most would consider safe?

Mabey- mabey not. I have know idea what most people consider safe. But if I had to guess I would say we both are compared to the newer generation of AFF grads.

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]

Quote

Tearing down the majority of suggestions is going to lead to the perception that you're against all of them.

Hmm. This is the first WL thread I have commented on in a long time. Thanks Wendy again.

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

Yes Ron plenty, just not in this thread.

Please provide one.

Quote

Well I did not know there was a debat on these

There was when they came out....A bunch of guys saying that they were stupid, and they knew what they were able to do, knew their limits..yada,yada,yada....Kinda like you are doing with the WL BSR.

So now you don't find them funny or strange...Same thing will happen with a WL BSR a few folks that think they would be fine will bitch and moan. Then they will join on, and in 20 years jumping a high WL without training will be about as cool as low pulls are today.

Quote

Mabey- mabey not. I have know idea what most people consider safe. But if I had to guess I would say we both are compared to the newer generation of AFF grads.

You think maybe I am more qualified to pull lower than you?

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

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

You don't feel that education could have prevented any of them? I disagree; I think education is the _only_ way to prevent such incidents.

Reduce yes, prevent no.

I do support your proposal, but I don't believe for one second that it'll get rid of all canopy accidents.

I realize you understand this - just thought I'd comment on the verbage.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[craddock 0]

Ron I am sorry but I am done here. I am not going to go back and waste my time to provide you with a post from the past. Why? I know what you have done and see you do it to other people. It will be much easier to point it out in the future.

Quote

You think maybe I am more qualified to pull lower than you?

No, and I never said that. If you want to take this to pm that's fine. We have both had some very low reserve openings but what's your point?

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

[billvon 3,031]

> Fuck Bill. Quit putting words in peoples mouth!

?? My proposal starts out with education. If you consider it useless, one could imagine that you don't think much of education.

To recap my proposal, I think the following should be done, in order:

1. Add a canopy coach rating to the USPA ratings. Teach people how to teach canopy control and let them do it.

2. Add some more canopy skills to each level. Right now the A license has a lot of canopy stuff in it, like braked turns; add more advanced skills to the B C and D licenses (like the ability to go straight when you flare.)

3. Add wing loading restrictions to each level, with the ability to place out of all of them by taking a canopy control course or demonstrating proficiency to a canopy coach or S+TA.

If 1 works, then you stop there. If 1 and 2 work, then you stop there. If that doesn't get people to take courses, you go on to 3. The idea is not to keep people from jumping small canopies, but get the people who are really pushing the limits (i.e. the guy with 100 jumps on the 1.7 to 1 Katana) into canopy training.

>The way I read your proposal. A canopy control course is not required, but
>offered. I think we need much more emphasize on education. Not less.

It's all about education. In fact, if you are willing to get education, the restrictions do not apply to you.