rhino 0 #51 July 26, 2003 LUCK L = Labor U = Under C = Correct K = Knowledge I make my own luck Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #52 July 27, 2003 QuoteLUCK L = Labor U = Under C = Correct K = Knowledge I make my own luck Rhino Damn Rhino...we agree on something. Lets try not to let this happen again!"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #53 July 28, 2003 QuoteThe hardest thing to learn might be our limits?We take chances,try new things.Holding back a little bit seems to work out most of the time.The baby step deal.It,s quite surprising how much you learn doing the basic canopy flying survival skills. no one is suggesting not learning basic canopy flying skills. What i continue to bring to light is that what is 'over the edge" for you may very well be holding back for someone else. Lets be careful not to create a 'cookie cutter' system that limits everyone based on those who fail to learn and demonstrate that failure in a spectacular method..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #54 July 28, 2003 QuoteWhat i continue to bring to light is that what is 'over the edge" for you may very well be holding back for someone else. Lets be careful not to create a 'cookie cutter' system that limits everyone based on those who fail to learn and demonstrate that failure in a spectacular method. When you say "cookie Cutter" you mean like AFF? SL? AFP? The tests needed to get a drivers license? Or a pilots license? What if I told you I was ready to do RW on my 3rd freefall? But I had to wait till I was off student status/ Or I was ready to test for my pilots license at 10hrs, but I had to wait till I got 40 hrs. (and spent most of the rest of the time learning Acro,a nd flying taildraggers)... But I still had to wait. I didn't feel "held back"."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #55 July 28, 2003 nope, those are basic licenses what i mean by 'cookie cutter' is a broad sweep approach that affects all jumpers (once licensed) based soley on jump numbers, without consideration to the huge number of factors that play into anyones learning approach.. yeah. if you've got 5 hours tunnel time you might be ready for RW on your 3rd freefall..still need to learn how to pull and land, but you could be smoking the points... you just cant post without exagerating anothers argument out of proportion in order to riducule can you??(see the 'invalid argument types post again)____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Clownburner 0 #56 July 28, 2003 I agree with Ron on that point.. The real problem is that many people overestimate their ability, and end up breaking themselves, to the detriment of the sport as a whole. 'holding back' a few for a short time might go a long way towards helping prevent a lot more people injuring/killing themselves because "they thought they were ready."7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez "I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #57 July 28, 2003 to many? how many? how many fly right at or slightly below their limits without incidnet and yet get no attention and no fanfare because they are successful? see your not holding back 'a few' you are holding back the whole for the sake of the 'few' who will not listen, and or didnt learn.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #58 July 28, 2003 Quote you just cant post without exagerating anothers argument out of proportion in order to riducule can you?? Well, my 3rd freefall was a two way, and my 4th was an 8way. No exagerating there. And this was with NO tunnel time. And I am not about holding people back...I am ALL about making people PROVE they are ready to move forward. Its not your right to jump whatever you want...It is earned. Just like its not your right to go Freeflying on AFF #1, or drive at 13....Hell I am willing to let you jump whatever you want....But only after you PROVE you are ready. Under my ideas, you could progress just as fast if you were that good, AND safer. I just wil not let anyone jump anything they want...Unless they can PROVE they are ready. So you could have 100 jumps with a 1.7 if you can PROVE you can handle it. What the hell is wrong with making someone PROVE they are ready?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #59 July 28, 2003 QuoteSo you could have 100 jumps with a 1.7 if you can PROVE you can handle it. What the hell is wrong with making someone PROVE they are ready? nothing at all. in fact i fully support this. Demonstrated ability, not jump numbers. now how do we develop a system (with numbers, training outs etc) that does that without creating a huge lever for the lawyers to use against us? what happens when hypothetical guy who has the ability, has demonstrated the skills and is signed off by the ST&A to jump that 1.7@100 jumps makes a mistake, pounds in, dies, and the grieving family sues? right now we have waivers and the only person responsible for how and what you chose to fly is you, but if we create a system that could be interpreted as "the ST&A said you'd be safe under this canopy" we've also created a huge liability issue that i imagine many ST&As will just say 'No' rather than deal with the potential lawsuits & liability. that will hold people back. people who otherwise might be jumping that 1.7 because the bought it themselves and they can without asking for permission (and when they screw up the only one 'responsible' for that screw up be it due to lack of skill, training, or simple misfortune which can happen to ANYONE is the pilot) will not be allowed to find their personal limits because they DZO/ST&A cannot afford the liability We cannot develop a system that gives lawyers more ammunition! no matter how much it might help raise the bar for canopy control skills overall.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #60 July 28, 2003 Quotenow how do we develop a system (with numbers, training outs etc) that does that without creating a huge lever for the lawyers to use against us? So your whole problem is with the law.... I don't care about that. I do care that we prevent more fatalities. Don't you think a lawyer can see that we are not doing anything about an issue and use our lack of doing anything as not caring????"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #61 July 28, 2003 and here i thought you cared about the future of our sport there is far more to it than that.. it doenst matter if the lawyer thinks "we dont care", we dont have to care. We have to provide the materials & opportunity to advance your skills beyond the basics, and encourage everyone to use them. The system we have now makes ONE PERSON responsible for their actions (as it always should be, the ST&A isnt going to pull for you) and that person has signed a waiver that has already stood up in court multiple times. but your never going to prevent more fatalities. the fact is the more people who jump the more fatalities we have and no system will ever prevent that. What we need to do is create a system that gives the jumpers the tools to help themselves. Mandating it is where we will get in trouble because YOU are no longer responsible for your safety and skills someone else is and that someone else is open to liability if you fail.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #62 July 28, 2003 QuoteWe have to provide the materials & opportunity to advance your skills beyond the basics, and encourage everyone to use them. Such as by limiting what you can do until you have shown that you can handle it? QuoteMandating it is where we will get in trouble because YOU are no longer responsible for your safety and skills someone else is and that someone else is open to liability if you fail. I don't agree here. We make people do things in AFF. We make them do two night jumps to get a "D". (I am sure that someone has gotten hurt doing these, but I have yet to see the USPA sued over it.) Making it manditory DOES NOT take away the indviduals responsibliity...It DOES make them follow a program and not just do as they please."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #63 July 28, 2003 there is no part of AFF that lets anyone else decide that you can 'skip a step' because you've demonstrated the skills already. Imagine the situation if a ST&A (and the JMs who were teaching him) let an AFF student skipped from level 1 to level 4 and he went in?? if we step up rules that say "not this until this, unless this person say ok" and something happens afterwards its very easy to point the finger at the person who said it was ok for you to 'break the rules' it doesnt matter that you've proven you can handle it. If you are beyond the 'normal written guidelines' and you screw up (or have flukey winds etc..) the person who signed you off to 'exceed the wing loading guidlines' could be held responsible. Arguments from this forum could easily be used to back it "you less likely to be injured or killed under a lighter wing loading" setting mandatory limits and creating a 'sign off/ test out system' will shift the burden of responsibility from the person jumping to the person who signed them off. thats were the liability issue is, and why mandatory wing loading restrictions are a bad idea.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #64 July 28, 2003 Quotethere is no part of AFF that lets anyone else decide that you can 'skip a step' because you've demonstrated the skills already. I know of several AFF students that skipped levels. My 4th freefall after SL was an 8way....After that I was off "Student status". Jump 12 was on my own rig without an RSL or AAD. It happens. Quote thats were the liability issue is, and why mandatory wing loading restrictions are a bad idea. Using this logic...even a recomended WL would be used against us. Facts are....We can't continue to do nothing about it. People are getting canopies thay have no buissness under. People are taking these canopies and killing themselves."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #65 July 28, 2003 go ask a lawyer what who liable the JM/ST&A who let them skip would be if they went in? recommendations are just that, and do not bind anyone to any particular progression, they are simply 'best practices' that be used or ignored at the individuals decision. there is a key word there individual no one is making safety decisions for anyone else, so there is no transferred liability. actually we can continue to do nothing. So long as the individual is responsible for themselves they are the only one who can be sued for the canopy choices they make when they fuck it. It wont be pleasant, and it wont help anyone who wants to learn, but they arent the real problem anyway. Increasing canopy knowledge is great, developing and distributing classes, courses and materials for everyone to use is wonderful. Encouraging everyone to seek that knowledge should be everyones goal when they see someone 'at risk', but creating mandatory regulations that makes the ST&A potentially liable for any accident you have because "he said you'd be safe" at that wingloading is not.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
