Should minimum recommendations apply to you?

[skybytch 273]

Check out this thread.

A few things that caught my attention - the deceased was reported to be athletic, had "fast reflexes," had done at least a few fixed object jumps and had told another jumper prior to this jump that he hadn't done a w/s jump in about a year. He was reported to be a current jumper though, with 18-ish jumps in the past few weeks.

Every incident has a chain of events attached to it. Break the chain prior to impact and you're likely to survive. Ignore the links in the chain as they are developing and you either a) get lucky or b) get injured or dead. This is not my opinion; in all areas of aviation this is a fact.

I see several links here that could have prevented this incident had they been noticed/acted upon but I'll only mention one here - the fact that established minimum recommendations for that discipline were not followed (USPA has the same recommendations as most w/s manufacturers in the SIM, don't know about other country's organizations).

I don't agree with this, but many people claim that some people are so exceptional that they can ignore minimum experience recommendations and do whatever they'd like. From what people who knew him posted, the deceased could have been considered one of those exceptional individuals. Obviously somebody thought he was because somebody sold/lent him a suit and somebody gave him w/s instruction despite the fact that he had less than half the number of jumps recommended for a first time w/s jump (not assigning blame here, we all make our own choices, although if that somebody had been me I wouldn't have slept real good last night). We see the same thing when novice jumpers are told they are so good that they will be "just fine" on canopies/loadings that the canopy manufacturer recommends not be jumped by novices.

In light of this incident, is the idea that some people are exceptional enough to ignore minimum recommendations a good one?

If you've ever encouraged someone to ignore minimum recommendations (i.e. told them they would be "just fine"), will knowing about this incident change what you do/say in the future?

Is ignoring minimum recommendations for yourself or for someone else because you/they are "exceptional" a form of complacency?

[peek 21]

Quote

In light of this incident, is the idea that some people are exceptional enough to ignore minimum recommendations a good one?

A very reserved "maybe". I would prefer to see exceptional judgment over exceptional physical skills though.

It also depends on if the activity they plan can be aborted if conditions change. (Break a link in the chain.)

Quote

If you've ever encouraged someone to ignore minimum recommendations (i.e. told them they would be "just fine")...

I never tell anyone that they will for sure be OK, but I try to avoid just outright saying, "No" with the simplistic explanation like "You don't have enough experience."

I try to give them the information they need to make a sound decision by themselves. (Teach judgment). I have had people reconsider doing something after I educated them, so I know that in principle this can work.

I have been studying, following, and discussing this topic for some time, and have come to the conclusion that a caring education by an experienced jumper/instructor/friend works a lot better than just saying "no" with a simplistic answer. This may take some time.

The "student" needs to respect the "instructor". That's why it's important for us to pause and think before we respond to someone asking on these forums about how to do something, or if they should try it at all.

(Edited to add more pontification.)

[jimmytavino 16]

using the "old skydiver/bold skydiver" philosophy...

i have always felt that it's better to EXTEND...... minimum requirements,,, for myself... than it was ,
to reduce or ignore them.
others may do as they choose...

a skydiving career should be a marathon, not a 100 yard dash.....

there is soooo much to try, to learn, to experience, to enjoy,,,,,,, better to go at a safe and sensible pace, than to have the "whole enchilada".... fast fast fast.....

Prodigies Do exist....and are amazing to behold..but they need mentoring/coaching/guidance,, as do any 'instant experts', in a field...
mentors must explain, AND enforce the common sense minimums which our sport has self-established, over decades and decades of trial and error.....

lets work to keep the errors at ZERO... .... if we possibly can.

skydive safely

jmy

[Beatnik 2]

A skydiver that I will leave nameless once told me "recommendations are just that, recommendations".

I have never heard of such a load crap in my life. Recommendations may not be a BSR but should be treated with the same respect. There are too many people getting injured or killed because of this idea that a recommendation doesn't apply to them.

Another problem is some people not only evaluate the person individually but the recommendation itself as well. Then they start to judge which recommendations should be followed and which ones don't have to be. This is a sport where screwing up and cost you your life and exceptions shouldn't be made under the belief that one individual is under the impression that they know what they are doing because of their personal experience. It is funny that these people are usually the ones with no ratings or anything. Then when you actually look at their track it isn't impressive. People feed on themselves and tend to make themselves out better than they actually are and then problems arise.

Bending of recommendations and rules is something that is always going to happen, especially if people don't know what they are. We should all actively try to follow them instead of seeing how far we can push it. Bending rules doesn't demonstrate a good example for anyone, the sport or future participants and puts all involve in a higher risk both psychologically and physically. If they did it once and got away with it, they will tend to believe they can do it again.

[beowulf 1]

I think that the minimum recommendations should not be ignored for anyone no matter how "exceptional" they are. By ignoring them for one person you leave open the argument to others that may or may not be "exceptional". The biggest problem with this is that "exceptional" is so subjective that how can you determine who is "exceptional" enough to qualify for exemption? What one person considers exceptional another might not. So who sets the standard for "exceptional"?

Bottom line is anyone on any given jump can die. So why get in a hurry. Do the time put in jumps and at least meet the minimum requirements before starting something new. There is always tomorrow as long as you are alive.

[skysurfcam 0]

Everytime an exceptional skydiver waits until s/he has cracked he minimums before trying something new and survives it, we hear nothing, and they and we move on.

Everytime an exceptional skydiver shortcuts the minimums and is hurt, maimed or killed, we sigh and move on, and all to often they're left behind. Dead or maimed.

Minimums are for all of us.

C.

Brother Wayward's rule of the day...
"Never ever ever go skydiving without going parachuting immediately afterwards."
100% PURE ADRENALENS

[billvon 2,991]

> Should minimum recommendations apply to you?

Yes - unless there are clear mitigating circumstances. For example, consider the following people who want that Cobalt 120 at 30 jumps:

-Someone with exceptional reflexes who rides fast motorcycles. Canopy piloting does not cross over to morotcycles, and his reflexes aren't applicable to canopies. So no.

-A 747 pilot. He has flying experience, but it doesn't apply directly to canopy flight - and 747's don't do hook turns. So no.

-A paraglider pilots with thousands of flights and experience with speedflying under a 12 sq meter Gin Nano. OK, perhaps this guy can do it - he has a lot of experience under the same size ram-air wing.

[kallend 2,027]

Doesn't anyone think it just AWFUL that we let people make skydives when all thay have done is taken a theory course lasting a few hours and have NEVER PREVIOUSLY JUMPED AT ALL! I mean, they have ZERO jumps and we let them skydive from an airplane. C'mon people.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[beowulf 1]

How does that even remotely relate to the topic?


Are you trying to say there shouldn't be any minimum requirements in skydiving at all?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

How does that even remotely relate to the topic?

I think you can work it out.

Quote

Are you trying to say there shouldn't be any minimum requirements in skydiving at all?

I believe in demonstrated ability as an indicator for advancement. Jump numbers alone indicate very little.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[beowulf 1]

You apparently missed my point.

There are minimum requirements for everything in skydiving. That includes first time jumpers.

your "demonstrated ability as an indicator for advancement" is subjective and can not easily be implemented. At the least there should be a minimum number of jumps before trying advanced skydiving disciplines. That at least is easily defined and does insure a certain amount of experience.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

You apparently missed my point.

There are minimum requirements for everything in skydiving. That includes first time jumpers.

your "demonstrated ability as an indicator for advancement" is subjective and can not easily be implemented.

Incorrect.

You have to satisfy your instructor before moving on a level in AFF.

You have to demonstrate certain skills before getting the various licenses.

You generally have to be recommended on the basis on proven performance in smaller ways before being allowed on a big-way. Just telling a big way organizer that you have 3,000 jumps will get you nowhere without a recommendation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[beowulf 1]

The difference is those scenarios you stated are controlled environments. On big way jumps the organizor is taking responsibility for those that are on the jumps. The AFF intructors are responsible for the level of skills of their students. With wingsuits and HP canopies there isn't the same level of control.

[billvon 2,991]

> Just telling a big way organizer that you have 3,000 jumps will
> get you nowhere without a recommendation.

Depends on the bigway! I've gotten onto a lot of 40 ways by just mentioning I had 4000 jumps. Of course, for World Team they're going to be more selective.

[JeepDiver 0]

Of all the skydivers I've met in my short time in the skydiving world I will say that 98.5% are truly stand-up intelligent people who care about the noobs around them. The sad fact is the remaining 1.5% have the ability to influence a much larger percentage of young and inexperienced jumpers by offering nonsense as advice. I've watched young skydivers follow this foolhardy advice, and the person offering the advice stand back and say watch this... as if it is some sort of amusement for them to see a fresh A licensed jumper hurt themselves.

One of the hardest things to do in a self regulated sport is to stand up to pressure and say no for oneself. It doesn't make friends very well in this sport.

Case in point.
A well known BASE jumper offering to take a freshly licensed B skydiver to jump an A at night before the newly licensed B has even had a chance to make a night skydive. I strongly suggested otherwise upon hearing the conversation taking place.

Quote

The "student" needs to respect the "instructor".

For the most part this is a clear distinction. Students do follow the advice of an Instructor and the Instructor is there to make sure of this. Instructors often take ownership of their students. Rightfully so, as a matter of ethics or pride.

What often happens is the newly licensed A is left adrift afterwards. He signs the waiver and is on his or her own.

Quote

Is ignoring minimum recommendations for yourself or for someone else because you/they are "exceptional" a form of complacency?

No. I think it's a form of idiocracy (not to insult anyone) that certain new jumpers do not have the skill sets to recognize or understand for themselves. The burden falls on the person making a bad decision. However I would not knowingly allow bad decisions to take place around me. I would not be a part of it.

Minimum Recommendations should be followed. Far to often when they are not the results are what history has proven may likely result.

I like the sound of this statement. Good common sense.

"a skydiving career should be a marathon, not a 100 yard dash....."

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

> Just telling a big way organizer that you have 3,000 jumps will
> get you nowhere without a recommendation.

Depends on the bigway! I've gotten onto a lot of 40 ways by just mentioning I had 4000 jumps. Of course, for World Team they're going to be more selective.

Is 40 "big"?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DSE 5]

Quote

You have to satisfy your instructor before moving on a level in AFF.

You have to demonstrate certain skills before getting the various licenses.

You generally have to be recommended on the basis on proven performance in smaller ways before being allowed on a big-way. Just telling a big way organizer that you have 3,000 jumps will get you nowhere without a recommendation.

Kallend, are you advocating that each discipline have a regulatory code? One that would require passing some form of evaluation prior to moving on?

We require that a videographer demonstrate various skills prior to being permitted to jump with tandems, regardless of jump numbers, but we don't require any demonstration of canopy skills (for example) at our DZ, prior to downsizing. Same goes for wingsuiting, one only needs the requisite 200 jumps and a coach. When does one get to move up from a GTI to something bigger? When does one get clearance to downsize?

[billvon 2,991]

>Is 40 "big"?

Yep. Formation loads are big-ways, and generally you need at least two ships to do a 40-way.

[ficus 0]

I think minimum recommendations should apply to absolutely everyone. That said, I find jump numbers to vary from serviceable to useless as minimum recommendations.

In a perfect world, all minimum recommendations would come in the form of something like billvon's indispensable downsizing checklist. The genius in Bill's checklist is that it not only provides a tool with which one can measure one's current skill (and comfort) level, but also a path to learning the skills necessary to progress.

Back here in the non-perfect world, I don't know if I could come up with an equivalent list for beginning camera flying. But I think we (and by we I mean someone far more experienced and gifted in instruction than me) could do better than the current state of the art, which appears to be "throw yourself out of an airplane 200 times". How do you even measure awareness in the sky in a "You should be able to..." way?

I think it could only be good to try to figure that out.

[sundance 1]

True, just because someone has 200 jumps does not necessarily mean they are ready to jump a wingsuit safely, so I tend to agree that instructor evaluation before someone moves on to a new and challenging discipline would also be a sensible idea. However, in most cases, someone with 200 jumps has moved beyond the tunnel vision sensory overload stage (if they didn't spread out those jumps over 10 years). That in itself would help prepare one for the demands of a wingsuit or other new discipline, so I think jump numbers serve some purpose. Jump numbers alone are not the sole answer, but should be part of the equation in my opinion. Maybe the recommendation should include jump number requirements (experience) combined with bonafide instructor evaluation (determination of skills developed from that experience). This might make sense for downsizing, swooping, flying wingsuits, freeflying, etc.

One of the surest signs that intelligent life exists in outer space is that none of it has tried to contact us.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>Is 40 "big"?

Yep. Formation loads are big-ways, and generally you need at least two ships to do a 40-way.

OK, global replace "big" with "big big"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[d123 3]

Quote

> Should minimum recommendations apply to you?
-A paraglider pilots with thousands of flights and experience with speedflying under a 12 sq meter Gin Nano. OK, perhaps this guy can do it - he has a lot of experience under the same size ram-air wing.

Surprisingly, those speed-flying wings like the O-Zone Bullet have no minimal requirements. Take it and good luck. All the PG pilots I know wanna try the Bullet and they all are "experienced instructors". They all fly 26+ sq meter wings (280 + sq feet). Different sports, different people, different mentality. I guess is only normal esspecially since one sports main attractions are the other malfunctions. This goes both ways.
I agree that minimal requirements are not for everybody. They are guide lines. I overdo the minimal requirements (exagerate safety zone) but that's only me.

Lock, Dock and Two Smoking Barrelrolls!

[NWFlyer 2]

Yes, as a relatively new jumper, I have come to respect the idea that the minimums exist for good reason and that there probably isn't anything arbitrary about them. When I was 16, I scoffed at my mom's declaration that, based on statistics, I'd have an accident within my first year of driving. I drove to school and work every day, nothing ever went wrong, and I was getting pretty comfortable behind the wheel. I was a good kid, I didn't speed, I didn't drink and drive, and I obeyed the traffic laws. Not me, nope, no accidents for me.

I chafed at my parents' restrictions on me - their desire to keep my driving within a relatively controlled set of situations so that I could build skills and experiences. I couldn't understand why they wanted me to stay relatively close to home. Why they wanted me to drive alone or with a family member instead of with friends in the car to distract me. Why they wanted me to only go to unfamiliar places during the day. Why even though the state said I could have an unrestricted license as soon as I turned 16, my parents created a de facto restricted license for me as I gained experience.

Sure enough, I had an accident within a year with a friend in the car driving an unfamiliar route. We were lucky - just damage to the car, no injuries, no damage to the other car.

I didn't get that then because I was 16. I was 16 and I thought that the fact that I was a good kid with common sense and comfort behind the wheel would make up for the fact that I was a kid with just months of experience under my belt, and that the likelihood of knowing how to react when I found myself in a bad situation was very slim.

I get that concept now that I'm an adult, and if I had a kid, I'd probably teach her to drive exactly the same way my parents did.

And I understand that in this sport. My "parents" in this case are the people, both individuals and groups, who have seen things happen, who have seen what goes wrong when a person without experience is faced with an unfamiliar situation.

I figure that even if the minimums slow someone with "natural talent" down, it's not a bad thing. The fact is, in a lot of cases, the minimums probably aren't even close to enough. But at least it gives us a reasonable place to start thinking about it.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[hackish 8]

I read the incident report when someone told me via PM that someone he knew was killed because he flew a wingsuit. I did not want to be disrespectful in the incident thread but I questioned myself if the wingsuit had anything to do with this incident. No AAD. No audible. Hit the ground without deploying the main or the reserve. It is sad to see anyone go but I question if it was the wingsuit or just loss of altitude awareness. Just throwing it out there.

-Michael

[skypuppy 1]

Incorrect.

You have to satisfy your instructor before moving on a level in AFF.

You have to demonstrate certain skills before getting the various licenses.
_________________________________________________

Seems to me that someone disregarding minimum experience levels is often the type of person who wouldn't be bothered with licences.

Did this person have a licence? If not, or if only a basic (a-licence) then he really hasn't demonstrated those certain skills you talk of before going on to do his wingsuit jumps.

Seems to me, unless he had 'a lot' of wind tunnel time and unlimited 'coach' jumps with an appropriate mentor, < 120 jumps (and 18ish in the last few week) is not enuf to demonstrate much consistency at anything.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone