Should a skydiver well known for his risky behavior (performing well above his skills) and/or disdain for safety be grounded?

[AndyMan 7]

I've only got 500 jumps so I guess my opinion doesn't count.

I do, however, have countless hours teaching ski instruction, including glades, back-country, etc. While not quite the same as skydiving, the risks are similar.

Quite frankly, I've never met someone who WANTS to be dangerous. I've never met someone who given two paths to the same goal, won't take the safer one. Going contrary to this trend is an indication of clinical depression and suicidal tendencies.

The trouble with a statement like this is that wether something is "safe" or not is entirely relative. According to my mother, there isn't a single safe aspect of skydiving. Who're any of us to say she's wrong?

I consider the way that I skydive "safe", because I do it in a way that lowers risk. This doesn't mean that it is safe, just that its within my tollerances.

Point: "safe" is relative.

Back to my original point, people WANT to be safer. We all remember that rush of our first jump, and we all want to regain that rush. We do this by doing things that are becoming more risky.

In the 70's and 80's people did it by going low. Now people do it by doing high speed landings, or flying in newer body positions, or doing even larger relative work. Again, "safe" is relative.

I've never met an individual who given a safer approach to achieve that same rush, won't take it. It's for this reason that we rarely see people toggle hooking anymore, first they progressed to riser hooks, and now many are switching to carving dives.

Where am I going with this? If someone really does want to be dangerous, not only should they be grounded, they should be introduced to a good psychiatrist and put on anti-depressants because they're a suicide risk.

That's a pretty rare person, however.

Everyone else, needs to be tought the better way by a good teacher. I don't necesarily mean by an Instructor or coach - I mean a teacher. Somebody who actually knows how to teach, how to properly convey ideas to somebody who doesn't like being the student.

Unless that jumper really does want to kill himself (and needs profesional help), booting him from the dropzone is a failure of the teachers more then it is one of the student.

Good teachers are rare finds.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[pkasdorf 0]

Quote

I've only got 500 jumps so I guess my opinion doesn't count.

...........................................................................

Quite frankly, I've never met someone who WANTS to be dangerous. I've never met someone who given two paths to the same goal, won't take the safer one. Going contrary to this trend is an indication of clinical depression and suicidal tendencies.

.........................................................................

Where am I going with this? If someone really does want to be dangerous, not only should they be grounded, they should be introduced to a good psychiatrist and put on anti-depressants because they're a suicide risk.

500 jumps certainly count, I never said the contrary. But well, may be we finally are finding common ground and I am really glad about it! First of all, I totally agree that you (or whoever is qualified) should teach first. When I put "a skydiver well known for his risky behavior, etc., etc," I obviously meant somebody who received the teaching prior and also the teaching after performing risky maneuvers. The reality of our sport indicates that that is what happens in the real world. Nobody gets grounded right a way. If it happens it must be an absolute exception! But in the real world, there are some people who disregard safety no matter how you teach them, what you teach them and how much you teach them, out of unconsciousness or that they think is cool or whatever. One should not be compassionate with them. they risk our lives. If they go to a shrink and/or take antidepressants, good for them! But let's wait to the results before letting them jump with us. They are not the majority. They are not even a significant minority. They certainly are a small, perhaps very small minority. But it just takes one of them to cause a preventable tragedy!

Do you think we can agree on this?

HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

[rhino 0]

Andy makes some good points...

Rhino

[pkasdorf 0]

Thanks for voting and sharing your thoughts! Let's wait some more for further votes and thoughts...

HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

[riggerrob 643]

With 4,000 jumps and a long list of instructor ratings, I voted to ground the offender.
But I want to point out that groundings are a grey area.
The decision to ground people depends largely upon how they respond to counselling.
Two examples, 22 years apart. The second guy was clinically diagnosed with mental problems. His hook turns scared us so badly the DZO finally said: "If you do that again, you're fired!" He hook turned again and injured a spectator. That guy should have been grounded much earlier.
The first incident occurred at The 1980 Easter Boogie in Z-Hills. I hook-turned my Strato Star and a load organizer threatened to ground me. The up shot was me paying far more attention to windsocks and approaches.
In conclusion, if a mis-behaving jumper admits the error of his ways and listens to advice, re-educate him and get him back in the air.
If another dangerous jumper repeatedly ignores advice, ground his sorry ass!

[pkasdorf 0]

Quote

But I want to point out that groundings are a grey area.
The decision to ground people depends largely upon how they respond to counselling.

........................................................................

In conclusion, if a mis-behaving jumper admits the error of his ways and listens to advice, re-educate him and get him back in the air.
If another dangerous jumper repeatedly ignores advice, ground his sorry ass!

Exactly, that is the point, thank you! I thought that the title of the poll was specific enough

"Should a skydiver well known for his risky behavior (performing well above his skills) and/or disdain for safety be grounded?"

meaning that "well known" implies somebody who has a consistent pattern. No such guy (or girl) has not received any advice and/or coaching concerning his (hers) behavior. Thank you for understanding!

HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

[billvon 2,991]

>Unless you are the "Jesus Christ" or "God" of skydiving you really
> don't have a clue where someones skillset lies..

>So no,, grounding is not reasonable..

Some of us have jobs on the weekends that require us to have a clue as to how skilled someone is. Often, this lets us work with people to develop the skills they need before they become a stastistic. Rarely, it means grounding someone because they are going to injure or kill themselves or others. Sometimes we can see this in other people in places where we don't have that sort of responsibility - and often, we have to watch when they get carted away in the ambulance (or the hearse.)

Grounding isn't a good answer. But when it comes down to seeing someone complain bitterly about not jumping vs. listen to them complain bitterly about never being able to walk again, grounding is sometimes the best of several bad choices.

[TRONQUI 0]

I agree 100 % with the matter of educate better than punish.
But this case this guy was psicopatic personalitty and does not hear to anyone. Since the ones who tried to teach how to fly his new eliptical from the others that tried to make him understand the risks involved in his behaviour.
Beliveme, there is not easy to deal with people who find other DZ´s who allow them to do what they want or just limit them to jump alone with enought separation time.....
What DZ owners, and skydivers want is not to see asholes (not people who make mistakes, case everyone does) killing themselfs at the ground and
turning down everyone there.

When people receive advises from many different kind of collegues in sport and they, based in their stupid ideas of superiority, goes beyond the limmits
to find their dead in the DZ ...... I do not negotiate

[TheBile 0]

There was a guy at our DZ who pulled well below the hard deck on more than one occasion. He was warned, in no uncertain terms, that if he did it again he could find another DZ to go SPLAT! on.

Gerb

I stir feelings in others they themselves don't understand. KA'CHOW !

[pkasdorf 0]

Just to put this poll on top again so as to stimulate more votes and thoughts!

HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

[pkasdorf 0]

OK, with 124 votes and an 82% vs 18% result that has been relatively steady during these two weeks (it is very unlikely that there can be a significant change of the trend in the future) and with many and very valuable thoughts and opinions expressed I think that the time for conclusions has arrived.

+ It is almost unanimous that risky behavior and/or disdain for safety is a concern
+ One can see that when defining well known as somebody who has been warned and taught about his behavior, an overwhelming majority favors the least bad solution -grounding- if he/she doesn't correct his/her attitude

Many thanks for participating in this poll and I hope there are no hard feelings left because of the sometimes very heated debate

HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

[AndyMan 7]

The point that you seem to be completely missing throughout this thread, is the degree to which this is only a last resort, and not to be taken lightly.

Moreover, from your comments it appears that you're either looking for the groups permission or acknolegement of you or your DZ banning a specific individual. Without knowing the specifics of what prompted you to start this thread, the comments here have come far short of this, I think.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[weirdchris 0]

Yes you should ground the culprit. It's either that or they'll ground themselves in one way or another.
having the phone programmed with 911 on the speed dial.
But grounding can make the person do even crazier stuff just for spite.
Kind of like a indirect fuck you.

[pkasdorf 0]

Quote

The point that you seem to be completely missing throughout this thread, is the degree to which this is only a last resort, and not to be taken lightly.

Moreover, from your comments it appears that you're either looking for the groups permission or acknolegement of you or your DZ banning a specific individual. Without knowing the specifics of what prompted you to start this thread, the comments here have come far short of this, I think.

_Am

First: I never took it lightly, there is nothing in what I wrote to suggest that. I already told that, accepting that nothing is black and white, that grey exists, there are different shades of grey and we disagree in how dark is the grey we should accept.

Second: I wanted to know what people think about the issue and the picture is very clear.

Third: It is amazing to see how people reading the same text can reach so different conclusions. Anyway, opinions and votes are there for everybody to see and reach their own.

HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

[wmw999 2,447]

AndyMan's point is that the vote is not the whole picture. In the US court system, an attorney can ask questions to place doubt in the jury's mind; things like "Is it possible for a man to live after a 40-foot fall?"

Well, yes it's possible. I'd have to vote "yes" in such a poll. But it's not very likely. The vote would paint a "clear picture" but it wouldn't be a very accurate one.

Grounding is an alternative. One of the last. I don't think I've ever seen an experienced jumper grounded, and I started jumping in 1975. I've certainly seen first jumpers told not to come back, but that's different.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[pkasdorf 0]

Quote

AndyMan's point is that the vote is not the whole picture. In the US court system, an attorney can ask questions to place doubt in the jury's mind; things like "Is it possible for a man to live after a 40-foot fall?"

Well, yes it's possible. I'd have to vote "yes" in such a poll. But it's not very likely. The vote would paint a "clear picture" but it wouldn't be a very accurate one.

Grounding is an alternative. One of the last. I don't think I've ever seen an experienced jumper grounded, and I started jumping in 1975. I've certainly seen first jumpers told not to come back, but that's different.

Wendy W.

I certainly agree with you, the voting is not the whole picture, that is exactly the reason why I insisted on not only the voting but also on the thoughts and opinions written in this thread "...and with many and very valuable thoughts and opinions expressed..." . Nothing excluded, everything included.

As you say yourself, grounding is an alternative, one of the last and I may add, as it has already been stated, that it is a bad alternative but under the right circumstances (consistent disdain for safety in spite of repeated warnings and coaching) it is not as bad as not grounding.

Wendy, I honestly do not think that you disagree with the conclusions I drew and wrote further back:

+ It is almost unanimous that risky behavior and/or disdain for safety is a concern
+ One can see that when defining well known as somebody who has been warned and taught about his behavior, an overwhelming majority favors the least bad solution -grounding- if he/she doesn't correct his/her attitude

The amount of warning and teaching before grounding is certainly debatable. But I never took grounding lightly as AndyMan suggested. There are some of our skydiving colleagues that have a fundamentalist view of our sport (and I do not include AndyMan among them): we should have no limits, no boundaries, no matter if personal or collective safety is at stake. I do not think that is right. Fundamentalism is rarely justified and to me it certainly isn't in this case.

HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

[JohanW 0]

Quote

Grounding is an alternative. One of the last. I don't think I've ever seen an experienced jumper grounded, and I started jumping in 1975.

I can't lay claim to your decades of experience, but in my humble 4 years of jumping I have seen one experienced jumper grounded.

He 'liked the adrenaline buzz of hooking and then digging out of the corner' or something. Yes, it was a last resort, no, it was only for the day.

Johan.
I am. I think.

[flailchick 0]

Many years ago, my X was the S&TA at a small DZ where the activities of one jumper were getting more and more scarey. my X had him complete the general information on a fatality report, stating that he would add the details later...
The guy seemed to take it to heart and actually seemed to curb his unsafe activities for a while. About two years later he "went in" with a video recorder strapped to his belly, covering his reserve ripcord. He had been the canopy guy on a Mr. Bill, and cutaway his good main after the other guy jumped off the Mr. Bill. His normal rig had an outboard reserve ripcord for when he filmed, but he had just packed that rig specially for a base jump and so had his older equipment on. Anyway, after filming his Mr. Bill, cutting away to dive down and film the buddy in freefall, he was unable to gain access to his reserve ripcord. My X was not the S&TA at the DZ where the fatality happened, so his previously completed report was never actually used.
Was the lesson with the fatality report affective?
Maybe, for a while, but not ultimately. The guy still died from his careless activity skydiving.
Would grounding him have made a difference? If one DZ grounds someone, should the neighboring skydiving centers do so as well? Hmmm.