"Britains Safest Dropzone"

[skyclownUK 0]

I notice that on Sibsons Website (http://www.skydivesibson.com) they claim to be the "safest dropzone in the UK".

Discuss! Is this statement valid? How do they work that out?

[quade 4]

Yeah, um, I don't need to go to any web site that -requires- me to install Flash.

Why the hell would you place a barrier between yourself and your customers?

Anyway, didn't go to the web site and didn't read what they wrote v. what you claim they wrote, but in either case to claim your dz is somehow the "safest" would be silly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Dougiefresh 0]

Makes more sense to say "Where the safest skydivers jump"

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. --Douglas Adams

[Hooknswoop 19]

On the home page it says; "Officially recognized as the British Parachute Association's safest drop zone." A lot of DZ advertising is blatantly false. Many DZ’s advertise aircraft they don’t have, “Voted #1 in the Rocky Mountain Region”, “We follow all USPA BSR’s”, etc. A first time jumper doesn’t know any better any is easily taken in by such lies.

Derek

[gus 1]

Ollie mate check out this post on this very subject, including a post by Stuart Meacock.

Gus

OutpatientsOnline.com

[maestro 0]

What a load of bull!!! That could be meant as a number of things -

1. "SAFE" as in less deaths/serious accidents in a set period of time from a set number of jumps, as compared to a similar DZ (in terms of numbers of students/experienced/coaches/freeflyers/bellyflyers etc etc etc)?

2. "SAFE" as in the club kit, including tandem kit, being better maintained or packed?

3. "SAFE" as in the injury rate?

4. "SAFE" because the people who jump there are 'safer' than anyone who jumps anywhere else?

5. "SAFE" because maybe the CCI is particularly strict about how the DZ is run - close supervision of newly qualified jumpers and not freeflying any old bit of kit maybe??

6. "SAFE" as in the geographical layout, maybe less obstacles, bigger landing area, separate student/experienced landing areas etc ?

7. "SAFE" as in secure - therefore playing on the fears of all British (and worldwide) skydivers since Mr Hilder's death last summer?

Grrrrr. This sort of stuff really annoys me. There is absolutely no way that statement can be substantiated and, to my knowledge, the BPA have never released any sort of statement declaring which DZ's are safer than others, or any statistics even remotely indicating that.

If you take into account that DZ's in the UK range from a sleepy farm operating just at weekends for students and tandems from 9K with a C206, through to the big ones, which have turbines planes, operate 7 days a week, have hundreds of jumps every day, with every discipline being coached for, and not forgetting the military DZ's, how the sod can one sort be compared to another?!

Personally, every place I've ever jumped at in the UK (unfortunately not Sibson), has meticulous safety standards, so much more than in the US or mainland Eurpope for example. The BPA highly regulates everywhere where active jumping takes place and every incident is thoroughly dissected at the STC meetings, with recommendations for change if needed. Blatantly, Sibson is trying to capitalise on fears of newbies and is trying to create an unhealthy rivalry between other DZ's in the country.

What a load of tosh.

Sorry if this post goes on a bit, maybe I should go and rant in speaker's corner or something but that's just how I see that 'advert'

Kay x

[maestro 0]

ok ok before anyone shoots my head off I just read Mr Meacock's post on the link above (It wasn't there when I initially started my rant so it looks like the BPA have had something to do with it. However, I'm still very sceptical. My point about how you can compare across vastly different DZ's still stands, and also, someone once told me that 99% of all statistics are false

Seriously though, it would only take one major incident at Sibson for all that to go out the window and they want to be careful as as soon as a newbie or tandem family witness something, they could well cross reference to that statement and start pointing fingers. I know that's awful to speculate and probably I will get angry cries from saying that but unfortunately, that's litigation for you and being blase about it is asking for trouble. Any thoughts would be appreciated

Kay x

[skyclownUK 0]

Cheers Gus I didn`t realise that this subject has already been discussed.

All the best mate

Ollie