penniless 0 #201 January 23, 2005 QuoteQuoteHow many of them would have been affected by the proposal? All of them that had a "B" license or higher. All of them that exceeded the WL chart. Derek That is a non-answer. Does that mean you didn't bother to find out? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #202 January 23, 2005 Quote Please, if you have specific misgivings, then mention them - right now it looks like you're thread-crapping just because you can... I apologize if it seems like I'm thread-pooping. I'm not out to stifle the BSR proposal(s) for being what it is, rather I'd like to see some better justification for it & I'd like to see people think a little more rationally about it. Honestly, I'd join the chorus of proponents with the same vigor if I were convinced of the BSR proposal's appropriateness. For instance, I'm more convinced by Kallend's old proposal of restricting people by age & sex, than by jump #. But I know that wouldn't go over well with your average jumper. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #203 January 23, 2005 Quote I submit the the "rule" is that most low time jumpers with small canopies get on just fine, and that the injuries and fatalities are the exception.Quote Most drunk drivers get home without incident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #204 January 23, 2005 QuoteThat is a non-answer. Does that mean you didn't bother to find out? No, it means that the proposal will affect everyone that starts jumping after (and if) it is put in place. Education and training will reduce injuries and fatalities. That is a no-brainer. That will affect a jumper even when they have 10,000 skydives, because they learned good basics from the start. Keeping people off canopies they aren't ready for yet will reduce injuries and fatalities. That is also a no-brainer. The test-out clause allows the exceptions to the rule to not be held back by it. Currently, there is no rule that says someone with 50 jumps can't jump a Stiletto 97 loaded at 2:1 when they can't land a Sabre 150. That is stupid. I fail to see how training and education and keeping people from jumping canopies they shouldn't be jumping, unless thy really are an exception tot he rule is a bad idea in any way. The current system of the S & TA saying "no.", doesn't work. They don't have a uniform policy, like the minimum deployment altitude BSR to go by. I'll address questions and criticism of the proposal, but just debating for debating is silly. If someone would like to discuss improving or adjusting the proposal to make it better and work out of the box, great. If someone wants to take the attitude of "It's their idea, they have to prove to me we need it and it'll work", lose the attitude. This isn't an ‘us against them’ thing. This is a skydivers thing and skydivers are all in it together. It won't affect me in the slightest, I don't jump anymore. This is my last little crusade. I don’t have to pick up the pieces anymore. So instead of asking, “Does that mean you didn't bother to find out?” Find out. Don’t let everyone else to the work for you. You are in this too, whether you realize it or not. Be a part of the solution. Present evidence, not just arguments. Present solutions, not just debate. Present ideas, don’t just shoot down others’ ideas. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #205 January 23, 2005 QuoteQuote I submit the the "rule" is that most low time jumpers with small canopies get on just fine, and that the injuries and fatalities are the exception.Quote Most drunk drivers get home without incident. Right. Just to keep people honest, this BSR proposal is for the EXCEPTION and not the RULE. Don't pretend otherwise, it weakens your case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #206 January 23, 2005 Quote Put YOUR ideas out there to stepped on and hammered into nothing. OK. Here's an idea. How about a gray-list. Instead of trying to find some illusory boundary between safe jumpers & dangerous jumpers primarily by their jump numbers, or perhaps in addition to a BSR proposal, why not put together a central watch-list of jumpers displaying unsafe tendencies. Just a list of USPA license numbers. Little or no other personally identifying information. And only DZO's & certified S&TO's could nominate a jumper to the list. Not so much a blacklist, you wouldn't want to kick them out of the sport, but a way to communicate between DZ's about people who may need additional guidance. An entry would expire without a trace after a fixed amount of time, say 1 year, or say, until another DZO & S&TA would recommend them off (I know, unlikely). Since all (practically all?) DZ's will record jumpers USPA number before letting them jump, it would be a way for DZ's to address problem jumpers going from one DZ to the next. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ianmdrennan 2 #207 January 23, 2005 Tim, Thanks for the reply. It's pretty much as I expected in that the incident rates dropped. To me, that's just another indicator that some sort of regulation will work. Sure, it's not going to keep those who are determined to become a smoking crater from becoming so, but I believe it'll help those who are genuinely nothing more than a little overly enthusiastic from becoming one unnecessarily. To those saying that there are plenty of people jumping small canopies and not dying, I believe that while this may be true, what has not been seen or reported is that the majority of those who get in over their head with small canopies have injured themselves in some way, often seriously enough to brake a bone. If the impact was hard enough to femur on, it was almost definitely hard enough to kill you (doesn't take much but a decent blow to the noodle). Stop focusing on the fatalities only and look around at general injuries at dropzones. I think you'll find they are more regular than it initially seems, but just not as sensationalized(sp?). We'll never be able to protect everyone from themselves, nor do I think we should try and cater for every possible scenario. What I think we should do is set up a reasonable set of guidelines that allow an accomplished pilot to progress faster but still under supervision. I think the current proposal addresses that quite well. It allows those who think they can progress faster to test themselves, and if they pass continue on unheeded, but also prevent those who are not capable from moving forward to wing sizes and loadings that are less likely to result in a favorable landing. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #208 January 23, 2005 How would a gray list prevent a jumper with 200 jumps that shoulodn't be flying a Stiletto 120 at 1.5:1 from hammering in? A 'watch list' is a good idea to keep jumpers are grounded from jumping their too-small canopy from going down the road and jumping it. An easier solution would be requiring the jumper to have on their license, the max WL they are allowed to jump. They buy a canopy they can;t handle and grounded at their home DZ and try to go down the road and that DZ grounds them after looking at their license. People that try and lie about their WL will be catch quickly and then they won't ba able to jump anywhere, regardless of WL. Derek Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #209 January 23, 2005 Quote*** So instead of asking, “Does that mean you didn't bother to find out?” Find out. Don’t let everyone else to the work for you. You are in this too, whether you realize it or not. Be a part of the solution. Present evidence, not just arguments. Present solutions, not just debate. Present ideas, don’t just shoot down others’ ideas. Derek Why should I have to find the evidence to support your proposal? Surely YOU are the one obliged to provide evidence to support your own proposal. My question is very simple, what % of the landing fatalities over the last 2 years could have been prevented by a WL restriction as you propose? If you can't answer that, then be honest about it and not just lash out at those of us who'd like more information. I'm sure you are a very well meaning man, but your "I know I'm right so I don't need to present any facts and anyone that asks is an obstructionist" is an unhelpful attitude. I gather that our elected representatives on the USPA BOD are not rushing to implemement your proposal, so maybe they would like more information too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #210 January 23, 2005 Actually I don't have a case; that was my first post on this thread. The implication of my comment is that not only those drunk drivers who get into accidents are driving poorly. The same can be said for junior canopy pilots jumping over their experience/skill level. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #211 January 23, 2005 Quote To those saying that there are plenty of people jumping small canopies and not dying, I believe that while this may be true, what has not been seen or reported is that the majority of those who get in over their head with small canopies have injured themselves in some way, often seriously enough to brake a bone. If the impact was hard enough to femur on, it was almost definitely hard enough to kill you (doesn't take much but a decent blow to the noodle). So you have no actual facts either? You just assume, and go on from there. Has it occurred to you that "what has not been seen or reported" may not have been seen or reported because it didn't happen? All this wiggling and weaseling just weakens your case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #212 January 23, 2005 QuoteWhy should I have to find the evidence to support your proposal? There is the root of the problem. Kallend felt the same way. He was wrong. Why? Because this affects you as a skydiver, that's why. Again, this isn't a 'us versus them' thing. It's a skydiver thing. You should care. You should want to make a positive difference. Don’t be so lazy, sit back and say, “Convince me.” You are just another skydiver, like all the other skydivers. You are not the one-man sounding board and any BSR proposals must pass your review. You are trying to put yourself in the position of having to be convinced to justify the BSR. Sorry, but that isn’t your position, that is USPA’s position. If you want to be in that position, run for the BOD. If you want to change or stop the proposal, present some evidence. I don’t have to convince you that it is a good idea with charts an 8 x 10 glossy pictures. If you were in a sinking boat, would you ask for proof that the boat will sink before getting in the life boat? If I was on a sinking boat with you, I wouldn’t stop from getting in the life boat to try and prove to you that the boat is really sinking. If you want to go down with the ship because no one will prove to you it is sinking, good luck to you. The point is, you are in the boat. QuoteI gather that our elected representatives on the USPA BOD are not rushing to implemement your proposal, so maybe they would like more information too. It is being addressed and worked on. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #213 January 23, 2005 Quote How would a gray list prevent a jumper with 200 jumps that shoulodn't be flying a Stiletto 120 at 1.5:1 from hammering in? It still be the jumper's responsibility to ensure his own safety. If he's at a DZ that already knows he's exceeding his capacity & tolerates this (ie, waiver style), then no amount of regulation will change this. In practical terms. DZO's are already allowed to waive many BSRs. But DZs would have the information they need to make their own decisions. They could charge more, or insist on coached jumps, or just give the fellow a stern talking to. Who knows, but the DZ would be able to make the decision based on their best judgement. Some DZs might even not allow marked jumpers to fly, and it is reasonable, IMO, that the circumstances may mean that this is appropriate. For example, a small DZ might not have the training staff on hand to deal with it. Call it USPA probation. Quote An easier solution would be requiring the jumper to have on their license, the max WL they are allowed to jump. It would be harder to forge a gray-list. than a specification on a license. USPA license # could be correlated with name, and name could be correlated with gov't ID. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #214 January 23, 2005 Quote It still be the jumper's responsibility to ensure his own safety. Then why have BSR's at all? Why not let jumpers do whatever they want? QuoteIf he's at a DZ that already knows he's exceeding his capacity & tolerates this (ie, waiver style), then no amount of regulation will change this. If they couldn't jump, then they wouldn't hammer in under a canopy they can't handle. The BSR would prevent their inury/fatality. QuoteDZO's are already allowed to waive many BSRs. And this one could be waived/exceeded, whatever if the jumper was competent enough to do so. QuoteBut DZs would have the information they need to make their own decisions. They could charge more, or insist on coached jumps, or just give the fellow a stern talking to. Who knows, but the DZ would be able to make the decision based on their best judgement. Some DZs might even not allow marked jumpers to fly, and it is reasonable, IMO, that the circumstances may mean that this is appropriate. For example, a small DZ might not have the training staff on hand to deal with it. That is the current system, which isn't working. There are no guidelines, so it is done haphazardly from DZ to DZ. There are DZ's in the U.S that I would not have been allowed to jump at, even though I could safely fly my canopy. They had their rules and there are no exceptions. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #215 January 23, 2005 Quote Then why have BSR's at all? Why not let jumpers do whatever they want? It would facilitate greater efforts to shape a jumper's preferences. IMO it's fruitless to attempt to influence a population's actions without influencing their motives. Quote If they couldn't jump, then they wouldn't hammer in under a canopy they can't handle. The BSR would prevent their inury/fatality. Either the DZ permits the jumper to exceed his capacity or not. A DZO or S&TA could certify the jumper beyond his capacity even with the BSR. I have seen that BSRs are typically enforced at the discretion of the DZ--more or less as intended, I understand. Quote And this one could be waived/exceeded, whatever if the jumper was competent enough to do so. And the difference is in the assumptions made about the populations. The BSR introduces friction around the edges of the groups it defines. A probation system has friction, too, but it might not be so unreasonable as some algebraic concoction. Quote That is the current system, which isn't working. There are no guidelines, so it is done haphazardly from DZ to DZ. There are DZ's in the U.S that I would not have been allowed to jump at, even though I could safely fly my canopy. They had their rules and there are no exceptions. Suggested guidelines would have to accompany the introduction of probation, under any circumstance. For instance, it might be more reasonable to make the current BSR proposal terms under which probation jumpers would have to abide by virtue of their status. Part of the problem, as you describe, seems to be that the system is too flexible right now. I think that one of the major problems with the BSR proposal is that it's too rigid, yes, including with the test-out provision. A gray-list could be a step toward greater consistency, while not eliminating flexibility altogether. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #216 January 23, 2005 This is basically the system in place today, which doesn't work. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #217 January 23, 2005 There is already a USPA probation list? nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #218 January 23, 2005 Sometimes DZ's call when they ground someone in case they try a different DZ. This only works when the DZ's are on speaking terms, which in a lot of cases, they aren't. Your idea also doesn't include any training or education, which I think is vital to reducing injuries/fatalities. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 20 #219 January 23, 2005 I know of 3 major injuries requiring metal into the jumpers and another one that the jumper was lucky to walk away alive from, not one of those was ever reported to anyone. Its great that everyone wants to know more info before they put in a rule but when DZ's are specificalyl not filling reports for injuries due to the screw ups at USPA HQ in the past your stat list will always be piss poor at best.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #220 January 23, 2005 Quote Sometimes DZ's call when they ground someone in case they try a different DZ. This only works when the DZ's are on speaking terms, which in a lot of cases, they aren't. It is exactly this part that changes. There's no more speaking terms to work out, just a published list of registered jumpers. Training & education are not excluded from the idea. It could be part of the process, that to exit probationary status, or just by virtue of entering probationary status, additional training could be required. nathaniel now if you'll forgive me, I've a flight to catch.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ianmdrennan 2 #221 January 23, 2005 QuoteSo you have no actual facts either? I actually do. I've bore witness to many accidents that were never filed with the USPA over my 8 years in the sport. You have 6, I'd assume by now you've been exposed to the same amount of stuff that I have. I'd be extremely surprised if every accident you'd ever heard of or knew about was reported. QuoteYou just assume, and go on from there. No, I was actually there. I've also jumped at a number of dz's over the years and EVERY ONE of them didn't always file incident reports for injuries. QuoteHas it occurred to you that "what has not been seen or reported" may not have been seen or reported because it didn't happen? Nope, I've seen it happen numerous times. But hey, what do I know, apparently you have a better handle on this than I. QuoteAll this wiggling and weaseling just weakens your case No wiggling and weaseling here. Just years of being around the sport. You can turn a blind eye if you want. Quite honestly you seem scared of proving your abilities. Guess that makes you one of the problem crowd, which in turn weakens your case (somehow I doubt you'll like me making assumptions about you as you have of I). I'm all about discussion, I don't know if this is definitely the right way to go and I think discussing these things helps bring out flaws with the solutions. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #222 January 23, 2005 The problem I see is your idea doesn't come into effect untila fter there is a problem. I think training and education for everyone, not just jumpers that end up on a list is the way to go. I think preventing in the first place from people downsizing too fast before they become a problem is the way to go. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freakbrother 0 #223 January 23, 2005 QuoteI know of 3 major injuries requiring metal into the jumpers and another one that the jumper was lucky to walk away alive from, not one of those was ever reported to anyone. Its great that everyone wants to know more info before they put in a rule but when DZ's are specificalyl not filling reports for injuries due to the screw ups at USPA HQ in the past your stat list will always be piss poor at best. Hard to hide fatalities! Of the 5 jumpers I knew who died in landing accidents, 2 had over 2000 jumps, one had around 1500, another 900 and a WL of 1.2, and one with around 300 jumps was jumping a Sabre loaded at <1.0 Point being, anecdotal evidence can be found to support almost any position. People have been calling for a data analysis since this BSR discussion started. I first recall seeing it sometime in mid 2003 and it must have started before that. That's plenty of time to go through the fatalities for a decade. Why won't the BSR supporters delve into the stats and come up with the information? I think no action will be taken by this BOD unless strong supporting data are supplied along with the proposal.. . www.freak-brother.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Designer 0 #224 January 23, 2005 I have to ask myself simple questions.How comfortable to do feel with my level of canopy flight?I don't do hook turns anymore!(let everybody else if they want to "At their own risk")Personally,I have 100 jumps on my elliptical right now and "Don't feel totally Comfortable in all situations"Will not do demo's,night jump just recently didn't feel right or safe to me and landing off flield is an experience I would rather "Not Ever Have"(If I have a choice?)!How many still know how to do a PLF.Ever had to do one with a square canopy?Can you spot correctly from any skydiving altitude?Know where you should be "Away from others" in freefall and under canopy.These are just some of the questions I know not everybody can answer.Anymore suggestions?We will get there someday?rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #225 January 23, 2005 This is a general response to your posts regarding the 'gray list'. Here's why that idea won't work. To build the list you're counting on the judgement of a DZO or S&TA. The trouble with that is that each individual will have a different idea of what/who is safe. The ptifalls are obvious; people not getting on the list who should be, and of course, the inverse. Why is this a problem? Were currently counting on the judgement of those poeple in regards to canopy selection, and it's working. The concept of the BSR, while it still includes people making a judgement call, it's a group of people, all of whom were voted into their position by the population to be effected, who are making a decision based on an ideal that will work for the masses (those of lower skill/talent included). This is all leaving out the other side of your coin, the utilization of this list. How often is the list updated? How does a jumper got off the list? How does a DZ access the current list? What separates a guy who 'needs a little guidance' from the 'crater to be'? On the subject of DZ's not following a BSR, you will find that anytime a DZ knowingly breaks a BSR, it is a controlled and calculated risk. Not following the BSR's is leading toward negligence, and anytime you ignore a Basic SAFETY Reg, the element of liability comes into play. In an effort to reduce overall liablilty, and strengthen their waivers, DZ's will toe the (this) BSR line. Here's an example. Bob, a DZO has a jumper at his Cessna DZ, John, who has 1000 jumps, most of them tandem/AFF video, and has been training to take the AFF cert course all summer. The satff admires this jumpers skill, and all the AFF I who are helping him prepare have only good things ot say. Now Bob needs a reserve side JM for an AFF lv 1, whom he is the main side for. He knows he could do the jump by himself, but the training has involved 2 JM's and he wants to keep it that way. In this case, Bob may go ahead and allow John to act as a JM. He has jumped with John for years, been filmed by him on countless jumps, and Bob will be present on the jump himself. Now Bob has a new jumper, Dan, who has 123 jumps and is ready for a canopy XZY, even though the BSR says he's not. Would Bob give Dan the Ok for the XZY he wants to jump? Given Dan's experience, how long he's been around, and how much control Bob has after Dan leaves the plane? This is why a BSR will hold. Anyone trying to get around it is inexperienced, and eager to move beyond what's been deemed reasonable. They represent the worst kind of risk, and therefore would not be allowed to break the BSR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next Page 9 of 12 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Hooknswoop 19 #204 January 23, 2005 QuoteThat is a non-answer. Does that mean you didn't bother to find out? No, it means that the proposal will affect everyone that starts jumping after (and if) it is put in place. Education and training will reduce injuries and fatalities. That is a no-brainer. That will affect a jumper even when they have 10,000 skydives, because they learned good basics from the start. Keeping people off canopies they aren't ready for yet will reduce injuries and fatalities. That is also a no-brainer. The test-out clause allows the exceptions to the rule to not be held back by it. Currently, there is no rule that says someone with 50 jumps can't jump a Stiletto 97 loaded at 2:1 when they can't land a Sabre 150. That is stupid. I fail to see how training and education and keeping people from jumping canopies they shouldn't be jumping, unless thy really are an exception tot he rule is a bad idea in any way. The current system of the S & TA saying "no.", doesn't work. They don't have a uniform policy, like the minimum deployment altitude BSR to go by. I'll address questions and criticism of the proposal, but just debating for debating is silly. If someone would like to discuss improving or adjusting the proposal to make it better and work out of the box, great. If someone wants to take the attitude of "It's their idea, they have to prove to me we need it and it'll work", lose the attitude. This isn't an ‘us against them’ thing. This is a skydivers thing and skydivers are all in it together. It won't affect me in the slightest, I don't jump anymore. This is my last little crusade. I don’t have to pick up the pieces anymore. So instead of asking, “Does that mean you didn't bother to find out?” Find out. Don’t let everyone else to the work for you. You are in this too, whether you realize it or not. Be a part of the solution. Present evidence, not just arguments. Present solutions, not just debate. Present ideas, don’t just shoot down others’ ideas. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #205 January 23, 2005 QuoteQuote I submit the the "rule" is that most low time jumpers with small canopies get on just fine, and that the injuries and fatalities are the exception.Quote Most drunk drivers get home without incident. Right. Just to keep people honest, this BSR proposal is for the EXCEPTION and not the RULE. Don't pretend otherwise, it weakens your case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #206 January 23, 2005 Quote Put YOUR ideas out there to stepped on and hammered into nothing. OK. Here's an idea. How about a gray-list. Instead of trying to find some illusory boundary between safe jumpers & dangerous jumpers primarily by their jump numbers, or perhaps in addition to a BSR proposal, why not put together a central watch-list of jumpers displaying unsafe tendencies. Just a list of USPA license numbers. Little or no other personally identifying information. And only DZO's & certified S&TO's could nominate a jumper to the list. Not so much a blacklist, you wouldn't want to kick them out of the sport, but a way to communicate between DZ's about people who may need additional guidance. An entry would expire without a trace after a fixed amount of time, say 1 year, or say, until another DZO & S&TA would recommend them off (I know, unlikely). Since all (practically all?) DZ's will record jumpers USPA number before letting them jump, it would be a way for DZ's to address problem jumpers going from one DZ to the next. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ianmdrennan 2 #207 January 23, 2005 Tim, Thanks for the reply. It's pretty much as I expected in that the incident rates dropped. To me, that's just another indicator that some sort of regulation will work. Sure, it's not going to keep those who are determined to become a smoking crater from becoming so, but I believe it'll help those who are genuinely nothing more than a little overly enthusiastic from becoming one unnecessarily. To those saying that there are plenty of people jumping small canopies and not dying, I believe that while this may be true, what has not been seen or reported is that the majority of those who get in over their head with small canopies have injured themselves in some way, often seriously enough to brake a bone. If the impact was hard enough to femur on, it was almost definitely hard enough to kill you (doesn't take much but a decent blow to the noodle). Stop focusing on the fatalities only and look around at general injuries at dropzones. I think you'll find they are more regular than it initially seems, but just not as sensationalized(sp?). We'll never be able to protect everyone from themselves, nor do I think we should try and cater for every possible scenario. What I think we should do is set up a reasonable set of guidelines that allow an accomplished pilot to progress faster but still under supervision. I think the current proposal addresses that quite well. It allows those who think they can progress faster to test themselves, and if they pass continue on unheeded, but also prevent those who are not capable from moving forward to wing sizes and loadings that are less likely to result in a favorable landing. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #208 January 23, 2005 How would a gray list prevent a jumper with 200 jumps that shoulodn't be flying a Stiletto 120 at 1.5:1 from hammering in? A 'watch list' is a good idea to keep jumpers are grounded from jumping their too-small canopy from going down the road and jumping it. An easier solution would be requiring the jumper to have on their license, the max WL they are allowed to jump. They buy a canopy they can;t handle and grounded at their home DZ and try to go down the road and that DZ grounds them after looking at their license. People that try and lie about their WL will be catch quickly and then they won't ba able to jump anywhere, regardless of WL. Derek Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #209 January 23, 2005 Quote*** So instead of asking, “Does that mean you didn't bother to find out?” Find out. Don’t let everyone else to the work for you. You are in this too, whether you realize it or not. Be a part of the solution. Present evidence, not just arguments. Present solutions, not just debate. Present ideas, don’t just shoot down others’ ideas. Derek Why should I have to find the evidence to support your proposal? Surely YOU are the one obliged to provide evidence to support your own proposal. My question is very simple, what % of the landing fatalities over the last 2 years could have been prevented by a WL restriction as you propose? If you can't answer that, then be honest about it and not just lash out at those of us who'd like more information. I'm sure you are a very well meaning man, but your "I know I'm right so I don't need to present any facts and anyone that asks is an obstructionist" is an unhelpful attitude. I gather that our elected representatives on the USPA BOD are not rushing to implemement your proposal, so maybe they would like more information too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #210 January 23, 2005 Actually I don't have a case; that was my first post on this thread. The implication of my comment is that not only those drunk drivers who get into accidents are driving poorly. The same can be said for junior canopy pilots jumping over their experience/skill level. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #211 January 23, 2005 Quote To those saying that there are plenty of people jumping small canopies and not dying, I believe that while this may be true, what has not been seen or reported is that the majority of those who get in over their head with small canopies have injured themselves in some way, often seriously enough to brake a bone. If the impact was hard enough to femur on, it was almost definitely hard enough to kill you (doesn't take much but a decent blow to the noodle). So you have no actual facts either? You just assume, and go on from there. Has it occurred to you that "what has not been seen or reported" may not have been seen or reported because it didn't happen? All this wiggling and weaseling just weakens your case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #212 January 23, 2005 QuoteWhy should I have to find the evidence to support your proposal? There is the root of the problem. Kallend felt the same way. He was wrong. Why? Because this affects you as a skydiver, that's why. Again, this isn't a 'us versus them' thing. It's a skydiver thing. You should care. You should want to make a positive difference. Don’t be so lazy, sit back and say, “Convince me.” You are just another skydiver, like all the other skydivers. You are not the one-man sounding board and any BSR proposals must pass your review. You are trying to put yourself in the position of having to be convinced to justify the BSR. Sorry, but that isn’t your position, that is USPA’s position. If you want to be in that position, run for the BOD. If you want to change or stop the proposal, present some evidence. I don’t have to convince you that it is a good idea with charts an 8 x 10 glossy pictures. If you were in a sinking boat, would you ask for proof that the boat will sink before getting in the life boat? If I was on a sinking boat with you, I wouldn’t stop from getting in the life boat to try and prove to you that the boat is really sinking. If you want to go down with the ship because no one will prove to you it is sinking, good luck to you. The point is, you are in the boat. QuoteI gather that our elected representatives on the USPA BOD are not rushing to implemement your proposal, so maybe they would like more information too. It is being addressed and worked on. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #213 January 23, 2005 Quote How would a gray list prevent a jumper with 200 jumps that shoulodn't be flying a Stiletto 120 at 1.5:1 from hammering in? It still be the jumper's responsibility to ensure his own safety. If he's at a DZ that already knows he's exceeding his capacity & tolerates this (ie, waiver style), then no amount of regulation will change this. In practical terms. DZO's are already allowed to waive many BSRs. But DZs would have the information they need to make their own decisions. They could charge more, or insist on coached jumps, or just give the fellow a stern talking to. Who knows, but the DZ would be able to make the decision based on their best judgement. Some DZs might even not allow marked jumpers to fly, and it is reasonable, IMO, that the circumstances may mean that this is appropriate. For example, a small DZ might not have the training staff on hand to deal with it. Call it USPA probation. Quote An easier solution would be requiring the jumper to have on their license, the max WL they are allowed to jump. It would be harder to forge a gray-list. than a specification on a license. USPA license # could be correlated with name, and name could be correlated with gov't ID. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #214 January 23, 2005 Quote It still be the jumper's responsibility to ensure his own safety. Then why have BSR's at all? Why not let jumpers do whatever they want? QuoteIf he's at a DZ that already knows he's exceeding his capacity & tolerates this (ie, waiver style), then no amount of regulation will change this. If they couldn't jump, then they wouldn't hammer in under a canopy they can't handle. The BSR would prevent their inury/fatality. QuoteDZO's are already allowed to waive many BSRs. And this one could be waived/exceeded, whatever if the jumper was competent enough to do so. QuoteBut DZs would have the information they need to make their own decisions. They could charge more, or insist on coached jumps, or just give the fellow a stern talking to. Who knows, but the DZ would be able to make the decision based on their best judgement. Some DZs might even not allow marked jumpers to fly, and it is reasonable, IMO, that the circumstances may mean that this is appropriate. For example, a small DZ might not have the training staff on hand to deal with it. That is the current system, which isn't working. There are no guidelines, so it is done haphazardly from DZ to DZ. There are DZ's in the U.S that I would not have been allowed to jump at, even though I could safely fly my canopy. They had their rules and there are no exceptions. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #215 January 23, 2005 Quote Then why have BSR's at all? Why not let jumpers do whatever they want? It would facilitate greater efforts to shape a jumper's preferences. IMO it's fruitless to attempt to influence a population's actions without influencing their motives. Quote If they couldn't jump, then they wouldn't hammer in under a canopy they can't handle. The BSR would prevent their inury/fatality. Either the DZ permits the jumper to exceed his capacity or not. A DZO or S&TA could certify the jumper beyond his capacity even with the BSR. I have seen that BSRs are typically enforced at the discretion of the DZ--more or less as intended, I understand. Quote And this one could be waived/exceeded, whatever if the jumper was competent enough to do so. And the difference is in the assumptions made about the populations. The BSR introduces friction around the edges of the groups it defines. A probation system has friction, too, but it might not be so unreasonable as some algebraic concoction. Quote That is the current system, which isn't working. There are no guidelines, so it is done haphazardly from DZ to DZ. There are DZ's in the U.S that I would not have been allowed to jump at, even though I could safely fly my canopy. They had their rules and there are no exceptions. Suggested guidelines would have to accompany the introduction of probation, under any circumstance. For instance, it might be more reasonable to make the current BSR proposal terms under which probation jumpers would have to abide by virtue of their status. Part of the problem, as you describe, seems to be that the system is too flexible right now. I think that one of the major problems with the BSR proposal is that it's too rigid, yes, including with the test-out provision. A gray-list could be a step toward greater consistency, while not eliminating flexibility altogether. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #216 January 23, 2005 This is basically the system in place today, which doesn't work. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #217 January 23, 2005 There is already a USPA probation list? nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #218 January 23, 2005 Sometimes DZ's call when they ground someone in case they try a different DZ. This only works when the DZ's are on speaking terms, which in a lot of cases, they aren't. Your idea also doesn't include any training or education, which I think is vital to reducing injuries/fatalities. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 20 #219 January 23, 2005 I know of 3 major injuries requiring metal into the jumpers and another one that the jumper was lucky to walk away alive from, not one of those was ever reported to anyone. Its great that everyone wants to know more info before they put in a rule but when DZ's are specificalyl not filling reports for injuries due to the screw ups at USPA HQ in the past your stat list will always be piss poor at best.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #220 January 23, 2005 Quote Sometimes DZ's call when they ground someone in case they try a different DZ. This only works when the DZ's are on speaking terms, which in a lot of cases, they aren't. It is exactly this part that changes. There's no more speaking terms to work out, just a published list of registered jumpers. Training & education are not excluded from the idea. It could be part of the process, that to exit probationary status, or just by virtue of entering probationary status, additional training could be required. nathaniel now if you'll forgive me, I've a flight to catch.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ianmdrennan 2 #221 January 23, 2005 QuoteSo you have no actual facts either? I actually do. I've bore witness to many accidents that were never filed with the USPA over my 8 years in the sport. You have 6, I'd assume by now you've been exposed to the same amount of stuff that I have. I'd be extremely surprised if every accident you'd ever heard of or knew about was reported. QuoteYou just assume, and go on from there. No, I was actually there. I've also jumped at a number of dz's over the years and EVERY ONE of them didn't always file incident reports for injuries. QuoteHas it occurred to you that "what has not been seen or reported" may not have been seen or reported because it didn't happen? Nope, I've seen it happen numerous times. But hey, what do I know, apparently you have a better handle on this than I. QuoteAll this wiggling and weaseling just weakens your case No wiggling and weaseling here. Just years of being around the sport. You can turn a blind eye if you want. Quite honestly you seem scared of proving your abilities. Guess that makes you one of the problem crowd, which in turn weakens your case (somehow I doubt you'll like me making assumptions about you as you have of I). I'm all about discussion, I don't know if this is definitely the right way to go and I think discussing these things helps bring out flaws with the solutions. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #222 January 23, 2005 The problem I see is your idea doesn't come into effect untila fter there is a problem. I think training and education for everyone, not just jumpers that end up on a list is the way to go. I think preventing in the first place from people downsizing too fast before they become a problem is the way to go. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freakbrother 0 #223 January 23, 2005 QuoteI know of 3 major injuries requiring metal into the jumpers and another one that the jumper was lucky to walk away alive from, not one of those was ever reported to anyone. Its great that everyone wants to know more info before they put in a rule but when DZ's are specificalyl not filling reports for injuries due to the screw ups at USPA HQ in the past your stat list will always be piss poor at best. Hard to hide fatalities! Of the 5 jumpers I knew who died in landing accidents, 2 had over 2000 jumps, one had around 1500, another 900 and a WL of 1.2, and one with around 300 jumps was jumping a Sabre loaded at <1.0 Point being, anecdotal evidence can be found to support almost any position. People have been calling for a data analysis since this BSR discussion started. I first recall seeing it sometime in mid 2003 and it must have started before that. That's plenty of time to go through the fatalities for a decade. Why won't the BSR supporters delve into the stats and come up with the information? I think no action will be taken by this BOD unless strong supporting data are supplied along with the proposal.. . www.freak-brother.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Designer 0 #224 January 23, 2005 I have to ask myself simple questions.How comfortable to do feel with my level of canopy flight?I don't do hook turns anymore!(let everybody else if they want to "At their own risk")Personally,I have 100 jumps on my elliptical right now and "Don't feel totally Comfortable in all situations"Will not do demo's,night jump just recently didn't feel right or safe to me and landing off flield is an experience I would rather "Not Ever Have"(If I have a choice?)!How many still know how to do a PLF.Ever had to do one with a square canopy?Can you spot correctly from any skydiving altitude?Know where you should be "Away from others" in freefall and under canopy.These are just some of the questions I know not everybody can answer.Anymore suggestions?We will get there someday?rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #225 January 23, 2005 This is a general response to your posts regarding the 'gray list'. Here's why that idea won't work. To build the list you're counting on the judgement of a DZO or S&TA. The trouble with that is that each individual will have a different idea of what/who is safe. The ptifalls are obvious; people not getting on the list who should be, and of course, the inverse. Why is this a problem? Were currently counting on the judgement of those poeple in regards to canopy selection, and it's working. The concept of the BSR, while it still includes people making a judgement call, it's a group of people, all of whom were voted into their position by the population to be effected, who are making a decision based on an ideal that will work for the masses (those of lower skill/talent included). This is all leaving out the other side of your coin, the utilization of this list. How often is the list updated? How does a jumper got off the list? How does a DZ access the current list? What separates a guy who 'needs a little guidance' from the 'crater to be'? On the subject of DZ's not following a BSR, you will find that anytime a DZ knowingly breaks a BSR, it is a controlled and calculated risk. Not following the BSR's is leading toward negligence, and anytime you ignore a Basic SAFETY Reg, the element of liability comes into play. In an effort to reduce overall liablilty, and strengthen their waivers, DZ's will toe the (this) BSR line. Here's an example. Bob, a DZO has a jumper at his Cessna DZ, John, who has 1000 jumps, most of them tandem/AFF video, and has been training to take the AFF cert course all summer. The satff admires this jumpers skill, and all the AFF I who are helping him prepare have only good things ot say. Now Bob needs a reserve side JM for an AFF lv 1, whom he is the main side for. He knows he could do the jump by himself, but the training has involved 2 JM's and he wants to keep it that way. In this case, Bob may go ahead and allow John to act as a JM. He has jumped with John for years, been filmed by him on countless jumps, and Bob will be present on the jump himself. Now Bob has a new jumper, Dan, who has 123 jumps and is ready for a canopy XZY, even though the BSR says he's not. Would Bob give Dan the Ok for the XZY he wants to jump? Given Dan's experience, how long he's been around, and how much control Bob has after Dan leaves the plane? This is why a BSR will hold. Anyone trying to get around it is inexperienced, and eager to move beyond what's been deemed reasonable. They represent the worst kind of risk, and therefore would not be allowed to break the BSR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next Page 9 of 12 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
nathaniel 0 #206 January 23, 2005 Quote Put YOUR ideas out there to stepped on and hammered into nothing. OK. Here's an idea. How about a gray-list. Instead of trying to find some illusory boundary between safe jumpers & dangerous jumpers primarily by their jump numbers, or perhaps in addition to a BSR proposal, why not put together a central watch-list of jumpers displaying unsafe tendencies. Just a list of USPA license numbers. Little or no other personally identifying information. And only DZO's & certified S&TO's could nominate a jumper to the list. Not so much a blacklist, you wouldn't want to kick them out of the sport, but a way to communicate between DZ's about people who may need additional guidance. An entry would expire without a trace after a fixed amount of time, say 1 year, or say, until another DZO & S&TA would recommend them off (I know, unlikely). Since all (practically all?) DZ's will record jumpers USPA number before letting them jump, it would be a way for DZ's to address problem jumpers going from one DZ to the next. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #207 January 23, 2005 Tim, Thanks for the reply. It's pretty much as I expected in that the incident rates dropped. To me, that's just another indicator that some sort of regulation will work. Sure, it's not going to keep those who are determined to become a smoking crater from becoming so, but I believe it'll help those who are genuinely nothing more than a little overly enthusiastic from becoming one unnecessarily. To those saying that there are plenty of people jumping small canopies and not dying, I believe that while this may be true, what has not been seen or reported is that the majority of those who get in over their head with small canopies have injured themselves in some way, often seriously enough to brake a bone. If the impact was hard enough to femur on, it was almost definitely hard enough to kill you (doesn't take much but a decent blow to the noodle). Stop focusing on the fatalities only and look around at general injuries at dropzones. I think you'll find they are more regular than it initially seems, but just not as sensationalized(sp?). We'll never be able to protect everyone from themselves, nor do I think we should try and cater for every possible scenario. What I think we should do is set up a reasonable set of guidelines that allow an accomplished pilot to progress faster but still under supervision. I think the current proposal addresses that quite well. It allows those who think they can progress faster to test themselves, and if they pass continue on unheeded, but also prevent those who are not capable from moving forward to wing sizes and loadings that are less likely to result in a favorable landing. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #208 January 23, 2005 How would a gray list prevent a jumper with 200 jumps that shoulodn't be flying a Stiletto 120 at 1.5:1 from hammering in? A 'watch list' is a good idea to keep jumpers are grounded from jumping their too-small canopy from going down the road and jumping it. An easier solution would be requiring the jumper to have on their license, the max WL they are allowed to jump. They buy a canopy they can;t handle and grounded at their home DZ and try to go down the road and that DZ grounds them after looking at their license. People that try and lie about their WL will be catch quickly and then they won't ba able to jump anywhere, regardless of WL. Derek Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #209 January 23, 2005 Quote*** So instead of asking, “Does that mean you didn't bother to find out?” Find out. Don’t let everyone else to the work for you. You are in this too, whether you realize it or not. Be a part of the solution. Present evidence, not just arguments. Present solutions, not just debate. Present ideas, don’t just shoot down others’ ideas. Derek Why should I have to find the evidence to support your proposal? Surely YOU are the one obliged to provide evidence to support your own proposal. My question is very simple, what % of the landing fatalities over the last 2 years could have been prevented by a WL restriction as you propose? If you can't answer that, then be honest about it and not just lash out at those of us who'd like more information. I'm sure you are a very well meaning man, but your "I know I'm right so I don't need to present any facts and anyone that asks is an obstructionist" is an unhelpful attitude. I gather that our elected representatives on the USPA BOD are not rushing to implemement your proposal, so maybe they would like more information too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #210 January 23, 2005 Actually I don't have a case; that was my first post on this thread. The implication of my comment is that not only those drunk drivers who get into accidents are driving poorly. The same can be said for junior canopy pilots jumping over their experience/skill level. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #211 January 23, 2005 Quote To those saying that there are plenty of people jumping small canopies and not dying, I believe that while this may be true, what has not been seen or reported is that the majority of those who get in over their head with small canopies have injured themselves in some way, often seriously enough to brake a bone. If the impact was hard enough to femur on, it was almost definitely hard enough to kill you (doesn't take much but a decent blow to the noodle). So you have no actual facts either? You just assume, and go on from there. Has it occurred to you that "what has not been seen or reported" may not have been seen or reported because it didn't happen? All this wiggling and weaseling just weakens your case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #212 January 23, 2005 QuoteWhy should I have to find the evidence to support your proposal? There is the root of the problem. Kallend felt the same way. He was wrong. Why? Because this affects you as a skydiver, that's why. Again, this isn't a 'us versus them' thing. It's a skydiver thing. You should care. You should want to make a positive difference. Don’t be so lazy, sit back and say, “Convince me.” You are just another skydiver, like all the other skydivers. You are not the one-man sounding board and any BSR proposals must pass your review. You are trying to put yourself in the position of having to be convinced to justify the BSR. Sorry, but that isn’t your position, that is USPA’s position. If you want to be in that position, run for the BOD. If you want to change or stop the proposal, present some evidence. I don’t have to convince you that it is a good idea with charts an 8 x 10 glossy pictures. If you were in a sinking boat, would you ask for proof that the boat will sink before getting in the life boat? If I was on a sinking boat with you, I wouldn’t stop from getting in the life boat to try and prove to you that the boat is really sinking. If you want to go down with the ship because no one will prove to you it is sinking, good luck to you. The point is, you are in the boat. QuoteI gather that our elected representatives on the USPA BOD are not rushing to implemement your proposal, so maybe they would like more information too. It is being addressed and worked on. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #213 January 23, 2005 Quote How would a gray list prevent a jumper with 200 jumps that shoulodn't be flying a Stiletto 120 at 1.5:1 from hammering in? It still be the jumper's responsibility to ensure his own safety. If he's at a DZ that already knows he's exceeding his capacity & tolerates this (ie, waiver style), then no amount of regulation will change this. In practical terms. DZO's are already allowed to waive many BSRs. But DZs would have the information they need to make their own decisions. They could charge more, or insist on coached jumps, or just give the fellow a stern talking to. Who knows, but the DZ would be able to make the decision based on their best judgement. Some DZs might even not allow marked jumpers to fly, and it is reasonable, IMO, that the circumstances may mean that this is appropriate. For example, a small DZ might not have the training staff on hand to deal with it. Call it USPA probation. Quote An easier solution would be requiring the jumper to have on their license, the max WL they are allowed to jump. It would be harder to forge a gray-list. than a specification on a license. USPA license # could be correlated with name, and name could be correlated with gov't ID. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #214 January 23, 2005 Quote It still be the jumper's responsibility to ensure his own safety. Then why have BSR's at all? Why not let jumpers do whatever they want? QuoteIf he's at a DZ that already knows he's exceeding his capacity & tolerates this (ie, waiver style), then no amount of regulation will change this. If they couldn't jump, then they wouldn't hammer in under a canopy they can't handle. The BSR would prevent their inury/fatality. QuoteDZO's are already allowed to waive many BSRs. And this one could be waived/exceeded, whatever if the jumper was competent enough to do so. QuoteBut DZs would have the information they need to make their own decisions. They could charge more, or insist on coached jumps, or just give the fellow a stern talking to. Who knows, but the DZ would be able to make the decision based on their best judgement. Some DZs might even not allow marked jumpers to fly, and it is reasonable, IMO, that the circumstances may mean that this is appropriate. For example, a small DZ might not have the training staff on hand to deal with it. That is the current system, which isn't working. There are no guidelines, so it is done haphazardly from DZ to DZ. There are DZ's in the U.S that I would not have been allowed to jump at, even though I could safely fly my canopy. They had their rules and there are no exceptions. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #215 January 23, 2005 Quote Then why have BSR's at all? Why not let jumpers do whatever they want? It would facilitate greater efforts to shape a jumper's preferences. IMO it's fruitless to attempt to influence a population's actions without influencing their motives. Quote If they couldn't jump, then they wouldn't hammer in under a canopy they can't handle. The BSR would prevent their inury/fatality. Either the DZ permits the jumper to exceed his capacity or not. A DZO or S&TA could certify the jumper beyond his capacity even with the BSR. I have seen that BSRs are typically enforced at the discretion of the DZ--more or less as intended, I understand. Quote And this one could be waived/exceeded, whatever if the jumper was competent enough to do so. And the difference is in the assumptions made about the populations. The BSR introduces friction around the edges of the groups it defines. A probation system has friction, too, but it might not be so unreasonable as some algebraic concoction. Quote That is the current system, which isn't working. There are no guidelines, so it is done haphazardly from DZ to DZ. There are DZ's in the U.S that I would not have been allowed to jump at, even though I could safely fly my canopy. They had their rules and there are no exceptions. Suggested guidelines would have to accompany the introduction of probation, under any circumstance. For instance, it might be more reasonable to make the current BSR proposal terms under which probation jumpers would have to abide by virtue of their status. Part of the problem, as you describe, seems to be that the system is too flexible right now. I think that one of the major problems with the BSR proposal is that it's too rigid, yes, including with the test-out provision. A gray-list could be a step toward greater consistency, while not eliminating flexibility altogether. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #216 January 23, 2005 This is basically the system in place today, which doesn't work. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #217 January 23, 2005 There is already a USPA probation list? nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #218 January 23, 2005 Sometimes DZ's call when they ground someone in case they try a different DZ. This only works when the DZ's are on speaking terms, which in a lot of cases, they aren't. Your idea also doesn't include any training or education, which I think is vital to reducing injuries/fatalities. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #219 January 23, 2005 I know of 3 major injuries requiring metal into the jumpers and another one that the jumper was lucky to walk away alive from, not one of those was ever reported to anyone. Its great that everyone wants to know more info before they put in a rule but when DZ's are specificalyl not filling reports for injuries due to the screw ups at USPA HQ in the past your stat list will always be piss poor at best.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #220 January 23, 2005 Quote Sometimes DZ's call when they ground someone in case they try a different DZ. This only works when the DZ's are on speaking terms, which in a lot of cases, they aren't. It is exactly this part that changes. There's no more speaking terms to work out, just a published list of registered jumpers. Training & education are not excluded from the idea. It could be part of the process, that to exit probationary status, or just by virtue of entering probationary status, additional training could be required. nathaniel now if you'll forgive me, I've a flight to catch.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #221 January 23, 2005 QuoteSo you have no actual facts either? I actually do. I've bore witness to many accidents that were never filed with the USPA over my 8 years in the sport. You have 6, I'd assume by now you've been exposed to the same amount of stuff that I have. I'd be extremely surprised if every accident you'd ever heard of or knew about was reported. QuoteYou just assume, and go on from there. No, I was actually there. I've also jumped at a number of dz's over the years and EVERY ONE of them didn't always file incident reports for injuries. QuoteHas it occurred to you that "what has not been seen or reported" may not have been seen or reported because it didn't happen? Nope, I've seen it happen numerous times. But hey, what do I know, apparently you have a better handle on this than I. QuoteAll this wiggling and weaseling just weakens your case No wiggling and weaseling here. Just years of being around the sport. You can turn a blind eye if you want. Quite honestly you seem scared of proving your abilities. Guess that makes you one of the problem crowd, which in turn weakens your case (somehow I doubt you'll like me making assumptions about you as you have of I). I'm all about discussion, I don't know if this is definitely the right way to go and I think discussing these things helps bring out flaws with the solutions. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #222 January 23, 2005 The problem I see is your idea doesn't come into effect untila fter there is a problem. I think training and education for everyone, not just jumpers that end up on a list is the way to go. I think preventing in the first place from people downsizing too fast before they become a problem is the way to go. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakbrother 0 #223 January 23, 2005 QuoteI know of 3 major injuries requiring metal into the jumpers and another one that the jumper was lucky to walk away alive from, not one of those was ever reported to anyone. Its great that everyone wants to know more info before they put in a rule but when DZ's are specificalyl not filling reports for injuries due to the screw ups at USPA HQ in the past your stat list will always be piss poor at best. Hard to hide fatalities! Of the 5 jumpers I knew who died in landing accidents, 2 had over 2000 jumps, one had around 1500, another 900 and a WL of 1.2, and one with around 300 jumps was jumping a Sabre loaded at <1.0 Point being, anecdotal evidence can be found to support almost any position. People have been calling for a data analysis since this BSR discussion started. I first recall seeing it sometime in mid 2003 and it must have started before that. That's plenty of time to go through the fatalities for a decade. Why won't the BSR supporters delve into the stats and come up with the information? I think no action will be taken by this BOD unless strong supporting data are supplied along with the proposal.. . www.freak-brother.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Designer 0 #224 January 23, 2005 I have to ask myself simple questions.How comfortable to do feel with my level of canopy flight?I don't do hook turns anymore!(let everybody else if they want to "At their own risk")Personally,I have 100 jumps on my elliptical right now and "Don't feel totally Comfortable in all situations"Will not do demo's,night jump just recently didn't feel right or safe to me and landing off flield is an experience I would rather "Not Ever Have"(If I have a choice?)!How many still know how to do a PLF.Ever had to do one with a square canopy?Can you spot correctly from any skydiving altitude?Know where you should be "Away from others" in freefall and under canopy.These are just some of the questions I know not everybody can answer.Anymore suggestions?We will get there someday?rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #225 January 23, 2005 This is a general response to your posts regarding the 'gray list'. Here's why that idea won't work. To build the list you're counting on the judgement of a DZO or S&TA. The trouble with that is that each individual will have a different idea of what/who is safe. The ptifalls are obvious; people not getting on the list who should be, and of course, the inverse. Why is this a problem? Were currently counting on the judgement of those poeple in regards to canopy selection, and it's working. The concept of the BSR, while it still includes people making a judgement call, it's a group of people, all of whom were voted into their position by the population to be effected, who are making a decision based on an ideal that will work for the masses (those of lower skill/talent included). This is all leaving out the other side of your coin, the utilization of this list. How often is the list updated? How does a jumper got off the list? How does a DZ access the current list? What separates a guy who 'needs a little guidance' from the 'crater to be'? On the subject of DZ's not following a BSR, you will find that anytime a DZ knowingly breaks a BSR, it is a controlled and calculated risk. Not following the BSR's is leading toward negligence, and anytime you ignore a Basic SAFETY Reg, the element of liability comes into play. In an effort to reduce overall liablilty, and strengthen their waivers, DZ's will toe the (this) BSR line. Here's an example. Bob, a DZO has a jumper at his Cessna DZ, John, who has 1000 jumps, most of them tandem/AFF video, and has been training to take the AFF cert course all summer. The satff admires this jumpers skill, and all the AFF I who are helping him prepare have only good things ot say. Now Bob needs a reserve side JM for an AFF lv 1, whom he is the main side for. He knows he could do the jump by himself, but the training has involved 2 JM's and he wants to keep it that way. In this case, Bob may go ahead and allow John to act as a JM. He has jumped with John for years, been filmed by him on countless jumps, and Bob will be present on the jump himself. Now Bob has a new jumper, Dan, who has 123 jumps and is ready for a canopy XZY, even though the BSR says he's not. Would Bob give Dan the Ok for the XZY he wants to jump? Given Dan's experience, how long he's been around, and how much control Bob has after Dan leaves the plane? This is why a BSR will hold. Anyone trying to get around it is inexperienced, and eager to move beyond what's been deemed reasonable. They represent the worst kind of risk, and therefore would not be allowed to break the BSR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)