anita

===================================== Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh! I miss Lost Prairie and all the people i didn't get to see there this year because of not being able to make it to LP this time. Janet Lundquist ALMOST talked me into going after all — i was sooooooooooo close to booking that last-minute flight reservation (just ask Canadian Crazy Larry from Ottawa [identifying specifics added to try and differentiate him from all the other Crazy Larry's]) — even though i woulda been jeopardizing my job (which i'm not quite ready to do yet, but just give it a few months, and i'll be in that frame of mind). Well, at least Crazy Larry finally got convinced to give LP a whirl. I told him that i'd bet he'd end up liking it better than WFFC. I look forward to finding out how accurate a prediction that ends up being!!! I hope everybody had a fabulous time (how could one do otherwise at LP???), and hope to see you all next year!!!!!!!!! Love and hugs, & visions of halcyon skies,

Oh ... and the other thing i've been trying to do is figure out why your vitriol about the convention is so vicious, and maybe you misinterpreted that as an attempt on my part to convince you to embrace my way of thinking? Well, perish the thought. I know that's not possible, and wouldn't want that anyway. I enjoy diversity and freedom of expression.

Sorry, i missed that final sentence this last time around. Is that what you've been trying to do? Convince me? Interesting. Well, it hasn't been my goal to convince you. I'm just trying to put forth something to bring some balance to what's being generated here.

I seem to want to gloss over the potential dangers? Now, that really is demonstrative of how little you're paying attention. During the past few days, i've referred extensively to the potential dangers. Discussion about this with you appears to be pointless due to your selective hearing.

Nope, not "blindly" — that's your opinion, which you phrase with scorn because my opinion is different from yours. I believe in looking at all the pros and cons. You seem fixated on only the cons.

What became of the post wherein the author described a swoop landing during which the swooper veered directly toward him (the person writing the post) while he was standing on the edge of the landing area? It's so bewildering when posts just disappear. I didn't think that one had stuff in it which justified getting deleted. But it's gone now, and i can't determine that for certain.

Thats because you do not seem to give any credibility to the thought that the WFFC seems to attract or cause dangerous behavior. I think it does, and so do many others. It's not true that i don't "give any credibility to the thought that the WFFC seems to attract or cause dangerous behavior" — either you're not actually reading what i write, or you're exercising selective "hearing" when you do. I've repeatedly stated my belief that all boogie environments are more dangerous than typical everyday conditions at the local home DZ. Unfortunately, some people's slanted emphasis on that fact in relation to WFFC is way out of proportion. I consider the negativity of these unrelenting smear campaigns to be opprobrious, and not healthful or beneficial for skydiving. Me too.

To [Mr. / Ms.] "notaccountable": I wasn't questioning your concerns about safety, only wondering what had been the source of that quote which Ron attributed to you, as i hadn't seen it before. And i admit, i was lazy and didn't go look up all your posts. As i said: semantics. In my perception, "safety" and "surviving" in skydiving are synonymous. (Ooooh, wasn't that deliciously alliterative??? Ooops, sorry, just having a little fun. I wasn't trying to alliterate, it just came out that way, and i noticed it afterward.) Anyway ... i imagine Bill used the title as an attention getter. That's a standard writing tool, and Bill's good at getting, and holding, people's attention — and that's a good thing, even if it means i ended up looking silly being saddled with responsibility for that long CASA spot the day of that naked jump with the Brazilians. I think it's definitely worth grabbing people's attention for the sake of safety awareness at WFFC. That doesn't mean it makes sense — or offers jumpers anything of beneficial substance — to boycott or bash WFFC. I don't consider myself one of the people that Ron characterized as "blindly" loving the convention. I don't know if there's anybody who fits into that category. Maybe such people are only a figment of someone's imagination? I think most people are on the continuum somewhere between the two extremes of the spectrum mentioned (blindly loving it or blindly hating it, that is). It's important to be aware of all facets of the convention, rather than obsessively focusing on one element. Have a lovely weekend, everyone! pax tibi,

Ron, i know you directed that statement at "notaccountable" — but — it seems to me that you're missing (or ignoring) the point that so many of us have already acknowledged, namely: that safety levels at your home DZ are not going to be existent at ANY boogie, whether it's WFFC or some other boogie event. From what i've been seeing here, "notaccountable" is NOT ignoring that concept. So yes, there is increased danger at any boogie as compared to a typical day at your local home DZ, but why do you keep harping on that, as if were feasible to expect a boogie to achieve the safety levels of local home DZs? Even the WFFC detractors (or most of them, at least) have conceded that ALL boogies are more dangerous than a local home DZ environment, so why do you keep insisting on bashing WFFC because it's not as safe as your local home DZ? Whoa! Where did THAT come from? You're attributing it to "notaccountable" — but — your post is the first time i saw it. Did i miss something? pax tibi,

Simply stated, it brings to attention the effect it has on the people who were there, which subsequently affects the community in general. If the spiritually damaging effects are what it takes to galvanize people into action, then let's not sweep it into obscurity. As i said, the people around Tent 3 — and anyone using those port-a-potties — had to contend with the vestiges of physical evidence from the fatality that were still visible. It has an impact on people — even the ones who were not "hanging around" because of "morbid curiosity" (as you referred to it earlier), and that impact, in turn, produces a lingering effect on the morale of the skydiving community at large. To take this to a personal level, i'll divulge a thought process that has some bearing on this. I have been known to say that i'd rather die jumping than wasting away in a hospital or just vegetating at home because my body has become too old and decrepit to still be jumping (may the powers that be forbid that). And i confess, i still feel that way. I know ... it's a cavalier attitude, and we're all aware that fatalities are a very bad thing for the skydiving community — in terms of emotional/psychological trauma as well as the negative impact on public relations with the non-skydiving world — but i admit that i'm not above having selfish thoughts at times. I truly would rather die doing something i love — such as jumping (and there aren't too many other things i love doing that are conducive to creating conditions for dying while engaging in them) — as it would be far more preferable than dying via those other options i mentioned. However — having said that — i'll also disclose that the *rational* part of my mind would really prefer that i NOT die jumping, because fatalities are so damaging to the morale of the skydiving community, and they inflict such horrendous spiritual burdens and ghastly after-effects on witnesses, bystanders, survivors, as well as medical and clean-up personnel. And that's what i'm talking about when i say it's valid to acknowledge the nitty-gritty unpleasantries that are part of the aftermath of a fatality. Perhaps it can help spur people into action toward trying to find ways to crack down (sorry for the hard-nosed phraseology) on the cause(s) of these types of preventable incidents. Or to re-state it using the wording you quoted from my earlier post: to try and find a way to curb the occurrence of such incidents in the future. On one certain level (maybe semantic?), i can see your point about the title, while on another level, the basic goal of "Surviving" skydiving—in and of itself—is a key factor in what we do, don't you think? To me, Bill's article is more along the lines of the mentality behind "Safety Day" procedures, with emphasis on precautionary measures we can take to try and protect ourselves, and i don't think too many people—including you (i imagine)—would consider "Safety Day" principles as being negative or derogatory. And lastly, thanks for the compliment. pax,

Yes, i see your point, Bill. Sorry for splitting hairs.

Yikes, what a slug fest this has become (as in *POW* ... *ZAP* ... *BAM* ... *KABLOOIE* ... *WHAMMO* ... *AARGH* ... *OOF* ... and other such types of interjections in comic strips). I was hoping we could engender a more productive approach to the issues that are being brought to the table, not a spree of insults. Oh well, i guess that element is difficult to suppress among skydivers, eh? pax tibi,

Actually, i don't see Bill as being negative about WFFC, just factual and realistic. He doesn't bash WFFC or discourage people from attending it, while at the same time, he warns them of the increased risk that is a reality in all boogie environments. As you may recall him mentioning, this year was the first year in many that he missed the convention. And yes, you're right — he’s consistent, he makes enormous efforts to educate people, he is invaluably helpful to other jumpers attending WFFC, and on top of all that, he is an extremely gifted writer, enriching us with many entertaining narratives. I just wonder why he exaggerated so much about "my" long spot from the CASA on that day of the nude jump with the Brazilians, and why he enjoyed teasing about it so much, when he could just as well have checked the spot himself. I guess it made for a better—and more amusing—story. I can understand your sensibilities on this, Mr. Anonymous, and i know that many people share your view about it. However, the immediate aftermath — and the effects on people in the vicinity and the people charged with the responsibility of cleaning up — is undeniably a part of the incident. You're right, nobody forced anyone to hang around, and i, for one, did not stick around during the clean-up. Neither am i throwing anything around like a party favor. I simply responded regarding one person's objection to another person's mentioning the inevitable after-effects attendant with a fatal incident. Hours later, when jumping resumed and people (including myself) returned to Tent 3, Winsor made the comment that the soft wet spot in the ground was not the result of the impact, but rather, from the ground being turned over and subjected to biohazard treatment, which is typical of clean-up procedures where blood is present. That spot was inches away from the packing tarps of Tent 3, and people had to contend with it, so i'm sorry if it offends you, but it was part of the experience for the people there, and i am not in the habit of brushing off consideration for their feelings, any more than i want to brush off consideration of yours. If people don't want to read something containing the mention of blood or bodily parts, maybe we need a separate thread where such references are censored? Personally, i don't care for censorship, but if it would make some people happier, i don't mind someone creating a separate thread labeled as being censored. Would you also want to extend said censorship to exclude references to things like both femurs snapping on impact, as one person mentioned in a post? I'm just wondering how far you would want the censorship to go. In light, love, and hope, anita

I disagree with your characterization of my tactics, Jan. What i've been trying to do is get an understanding of your tactics, although thus far, i'm finding them unfathomable. Sorry, i'm not all that well-versed in internet acronym-abbreviations. I know what many of them mean, but not YMMV. Translation? Anybody? Have you communicated any of your ideas directly to Don Kirlin? Have you expressed to him your thoughts, concerns, criticisms, suggestions/recommendations? I would think that might have the potential of being much more productive than all the negativity and rabid bad-mouthing about WFFC that is rife in these forums. One of my earlier statements (in the "Incidents" forum, where this thread originally resided) was that the fatality was being used as a means for bashing WFFC. I still maintain my opinion about the distasteful nature of that type of capitalizing on a fatal incident for a personal agenda, and that it far more befittingly merits the pigeonholing as a "questionable" tactic. I agree with you as to the preventability of that fatality, and admire you for your response of asserting your position at the time. (A number of people have made similar assertions about last week's WFFC fatality.) The fact remains that Bob's demise occurred, and it happened under weekend operational circumstances at the local home DZ — there was no boogie taking place that day. (Actually, i'm not sure if it was a weekday or weekend; would have to check my log book or some other source, such as a newspaper account of the incident, to refresh my memory.) In this discussion, the safety levels of day-to-day operations at local home DZs have been held up as a (not reasonable) measuring stick against which to hold the WFFC accountable, yet Bob's fatality occurred under just such "local home DZ" non-boogie conditions. No drop zone has immunity from fatalities. In that particular case, another jumper was almost killed along with the jumper who made the error. Did Heather stop jumping as a result of that harrowing experience? I don't know, but my guess is that the emotional/psychological upheaval of that incident probably did play a role in that outcome. In light, love, and hope, anita

Hmmmm ... does it accomplish anything productive to jump in the guy's case (mraardvark/Charles, that is) and twist his words around? He's just a guy who's upset, and he blurted out some advice saying, "don't swoop" — he didn't say anything about "banning" it. He also didn't say anything about "banning" skydiving fatalities. That was some creative re-phrasing which didn't accurately reflect what he said. Fatalities aren't something that can be "banned" of course (as you acknowledged), but there ARE behaviors and activities which CAN be banned so that we can start minimizing the number of fatalities, and eliminate — as much as possible — the ones that lead to the multiple fatalities, such as taking out other people in the air (canopy collisions prior to landing) or on the ground (collisions upon landing). Most of the time, such incidents involve hook turns. If we get serious about restricting where hook turns can be done (note that i did NOT say "ban them"), then we will definitely see a downward trend in those fatalities. If there's a designated area for swooping and hook turns, then that's where people can do 'em. Otherwise, they can't do 'em. Simple as that. And please, no whining about "what if there isn't a designated area for swooping on my drop zone?" That would be like whining about why there isn't a drop zone in your back yard, or a racetrack in your city where you could drive 200 mph. Either make it happen at your drop zone, or drive to one that has it. pax,

Actually, he was at WFFC in Rantoul last year, so it wasn't a new and unfamiliar boogie environment for him. As has been stated repeatedly, it was just another case of a hook turn gone awry. The reprehensible thing about it was that it was being done in an area where it should not have been attempted. There's a swoop pond at Rantoul, which is the only acceptable place to have been doing it. pax,

Hear! Hear!

Why? That is precisely the comparison I make, as well as a large number of other experienced jumpers make. The rest of my original paragraph made the point that gets lost when the one sentence gets taken out of context, which is what happened in your reply, Jan. The point was, it's bizarre to compare safety levels at WFFC with those at world record events or weekend or day-to-day populations at large DZs because — of course — in such an illogical comparison, WFFC is going to have a diminished level of safety, as any boogie would. The point was: it's akin to the apples and oranges cliché. I think anyone who is thinking clearly would not EXPECT or even hope a boogie (whether WFFC or any other boogie) can have a safety level comparable to that of world record events or weekend or day-to-day populations at large DZs. Bill von Novak itemized it more thoroughly in his "I think it's more that there are three cases" analysis, and essentially, corroborated the stance that WFFC is similar to any boogie and vice versa, and as such, will not have the safety levels of "a typical day at the local DZ" or a world-class event comprised of highly skilled and experienced jumpers. For anyone to think that a boogie could match the safety level of what you're using for a measuring stick is exceedingly illogical and unreasonable. You certainly don't need to go to "some" or any boogie to do that, Jan. I never made any allusion to that effect. Did i somehow inadvertently give you that impression? There are plenty of other people, though, who DO go to the convention for that, because it's something that they can't get at their home DZs. Do you condemn them for doing so, in the same way that you seem to condemn the convention's very existence? I would LOVE it if you succeeded in making that a DZ standard at Perris. I was merely making the observation that, at this time, it is NOT a standard there. If you don't recall my original question, it was: Why aren't DZs (such as Perris) addressing hook turn violations as aggressively as they are treating low pulls and AAD activations caused by low pulls? I would like to see Perris enforcing consequences for hook turns as persistently as Perris enforces its penalty for low pulls, and i would like to see that at other DZs, as well. In my view, the only acceptable exception would be for landing areas specifically designated for swooping. My original reason for posting the item that triggered your responses to me, Jan, was the fact that some people, including you, seem to have a penchant for bashing WFFC. This perplexes me because, although you haven't been there for i-don't-know-how-many years, you seem to have an axe to grind against it so perniciously — and with what appears to be NO recent first-hand experience from which to judge or to back up your malignment of it — to the point that your attitude defies comprehension. To me, it seems rude and, actually, unethical for people to continually bash something when they don't seem to be able to produce valid first-hand reasons for their malice toward it. It's one thing to make a personal choice about not going to WFFC for yourself, but to broadcast slurs about it to thousands of jumpers without reasonable cause is entirely another thing, and i just don't understand why you do it. Maybe you could enlighten me? pax tibi, anita

It seems rather bizarre to me that anyone would compare WFFC with WR (world record) events, or with weekend or day-to-day populations at large DZs. Most drop zones — including Perris and Eloy — host boogies, and boogies notoriously incite the "party fever" phenomenon of which you speak. (The boogie syndrome has been plainly evident at a multitude of drop zones during the three decades since i started jumping; i have named Perris and Eloy specifically simply because they were the only ones cited in your post.) WFFC certainly isn't the only boogie where people are found to be jumping while trying to recover from a hangover. Boogies at Perris and Eloy (and other DZs) also attract jumpers with lower numbers. At those boogies, too, jumpers do things that they would never do at their home DZ. The Bomb Shelter and pool at Perris — both of which host people imbibing liquor while jumping is taking place — are at a proximity to the landing area that is not significantly different from the beer line at WFFC. Neither Perris nor Eloy (nor numerous other drop zones) are at all consistent about enforcing no-swooping-in-the-general-landing-area prohibitions. I have witnessed many hook turns at Perris and Eloy, and although Perris is quite resolute in enforcing the policy of grounding people for low pulls and AAD activations caused by low pulls, this is not the case with hook turns. So, my question still stands: Why aren't DZs (such as Perris) addressing hook turn violations as aggressively as they are treating low pulls and AAD activations caused by low pulls? At least when there is a low pull, more often than not, the only life threatened by the transgression is that of the one who pulled low; conversely, low hook turns far more often pose a threat to other people on the ground. Your choice to stay away from WFFC for the reasons you gave makes utter sense for you, and is a logical discernment unless you apply different standards to boogies in general. WFFC occurs once a year for 10 days. Perris and Eloy host several boogies each year spanning a combined total of at least 10 days. To single out and point the finger at WFFC — as being the only time and place where the unsafe conditions you mentioned exist — is indicative of clearly biased thinking. One last opinion for this post: I don't consider it appropriate that this venue is being used to take shots at WFFC. I thought this was supposed to be a forum for discussing fatal or serious non-fatal incidents, not for criticizing the location where the incident occurred. I was at Perris a couple years ago when Indian Bob came plummeting to the ground from 50-100 feet up in the air after colliding into Heather's canopy. His body crumpled to the ground like a sack of potatoes just as my feet touched down about 30 feet away. It was a ghastly visual to behold and a terrible thudding sound to hear, no worse or less awful than the hideous visual and the deafeningly loud smacking sound of Mark hitting the truck last week. I was agonizingly saddened by Indian Bob's death, and worried for Heather and her emotional/psychological health. I didn't use the incident as a vehicle to slam Perris (nor did i have any reason or desire to do so), and i don't like the way this incident is being used as an opportunity to disparage WFFC. In light, love, and hope, and with wishes for halcyon skies, anita

[....] The above is absolutely the best concise overview of this incident. Bottom line: IT WAS NOT THE PLACE to be pulling such a stunt. Although Winsor stated that he is "very much without sympathy" regarding this fatality — and i can understand why he has such sentiments — i DO feel tremendous sympathy and sorrow for Mark and particularly for the people who knew him, and i send them my condolences. There were many of us there who — even though we didn't know Mark — were also very upset by the horrific loss of his life. Moments after it happened, one person who was nearby and very visibly shaken (as many of us were) said, "Somebody's baby is dead" — and i consider that a poignantly fitting way of thinking. This is something which warrants mourning by all of us. Having said that, here is my perspective, having been one of the people in the area when the fatality occurred. I spent most of my daylight hours at WFFC under the Tent 3 canopy. The edge of Tent 3 was less than 5 feet (probably less than 3 feet) from where Mark impacted on the truck. There were people in Tent 3 at the moment of impact; some of them were packing, others were standing around or sitting in chairs and couches while waiting to get on a load with a WFFC organizer. Cathy's Packing Place — with packers working and jumpers dropping off and picking up gear — was situated only a few feet east of Tent 3. The truck was parked such that anyone walking into or from the port-a-potties would have been shielded (and saved) by the truck. Therefore — contrary to a statement made earlier in this thread — if anyone had been entering or exiting one of those potties, there would NOT have been any additional fatalities, unless Mark had struck the ground BEHIND the potty-service truck while someone was entering/exiting the potties. However, if he had impacted 5 feet further north, he most certainly would have smashed through the canopy of Tent 3 and most likely WOULD have destroyed one or more other lives along with his own. If anyone had been walking in front of the potty-service truck — to go across the landing field to the flight line to get on a plane load, for example, or returning through the landing area headed for Tent 3 or the Packing Place or other destinations on that side of the landing area — the fatality count most definitely WOULD have been more than one. The lives of all the people in the vicinity of Cathy's Packing Place and Tent 3 were in jeopardy that day when Mark slammed into that truck. As tuffyjensen said earlier in this thread, Mark's speed at impact "was a minimum of 50 mph and probably closer to 65 or so." It's virtually impossible for anyone to survive such an impact, whether one is the projectile or the unintended target/victim of the projectile. Of course, all this hair-splitting about who "might have" been killed "if" the impact had been in such-and-such a spot is mere quibbling and, in the final analysis, beside the point. I feel confident in presuming (or "speculating") that Mark was not aiming for that truck or any other precise location or object. The fact is, though, that he was engaging in a highly dangerous maneuver which put at risk the lives of numerous people — people who are known and loved by others just as surely as Mark was known and loved by his friends and intimates. Specifics about hosing down the truck and subsequent biohazard treatment of the blood-sodden ground are part of the aftermath of the accident, and are legitimate aspects of the discussion. Mentioning them is a matter-of-fact recognition of some ramifications of what happened, acknowledging the potentially traumatic after-effects for those who witnessed it and the onus for those responsible for the clean-up process. To criticize and attempt to censor references to such details obstructs and detracts from the purpose — and usefulness — of a forum where the goal is to learn something from the incident and to try and find a way to curb the occurrence of such incidents in the future. If people want a thread that is exclusively for condolences and expressions of feelings and grieving, then let them start a thread designated solely for that purpose in the "Talkback" forum, as suggested by this forum's guidelines. If i understand the guidelines correctly, this thread is supposedly for facts, discussion, education, and hopefully, forging solutions to the burgeoning death toll incurred by these preventable accidents. The lesson to be learned — as if Bill von Novak and others haven't emphasized such things repeatedly enough (and apparently not enough for far too many people) — is that swooping should not be done (or condoned) in the main landing area. To reiterate riddler's statement: yes, it is a VERY bad idea to swoop in areas that have foot traffic. A number of DZs have instituted strict policies that impose consequences (grounding, etc.) for low pulls and Cypres fires. Potential flaming notwithstanding, i agree with Zipp0 that similar repercussions for hook turns are very much in order and appropriate. Why aren't DZs addressing hook turn violations as aggressively as they are treating low pulls and AAD activations caused by low pulls? It's bad enough — in terms of emotional and psychological trauma to survivors, witnesses, and others, as well as the carnage itself — when people kill themselves doing hook turns, but when they endanger and damage or destroy the lives of others, it's critically important that we start adamantly advocating and supporting steps to be taken toward discouraging such reckless and heedless behavior. It is probably quite doubtful that Mark had a lack of respect for the lives of others, but with the way a lot of swoopers defy admonitions against hook turns, it becomes really easy to start thinking that there are just too many of them who simply don't have the awareness of how savagely they are endangering other people's lives, OR ... if they ARE aware, they seemingly don't care by virtue of the fact that they keep doing it anyway. It's time — and in fact, long overdue — that stringent measures be taken in efforts toward dissuading people from engaging in activities that threaten the lives of bystanders. Mark suffered the ultimate consequence, and it was a sad day for the entire skydiving community as well as others outside our community. If there were severe consequences for people who swoop anywhere except in areas explicitly designated for swooping, there would very likely be a lot less of it being done, and fewer lives lost because of it. In such a scenario, perhaps Mark would have been grounded after one of his earlier "successful" swoops that he is attributed to having made (according to a number of accounts related in this thread), and hence, a fatality possibly averted. As for the "People wonder where WFFC gets it 'too dangerous to be there' reputation" comment, i have this to say about that: People have died as a result of low hook turns all across the country and around the planet. This is not a crisis limited to WFFC. In light, love, and hope, anita

Okay, checking in just to let you know ... this is Anita Paul-Oliver, and i'll be there, along with Darryld Light, and ... continuing with the example set by DJan Stewart, we will be creating a welcome environment for jumpers of all experience levels in a relaxed, low-key, non-judgmental atmosphere at Tent 3. So ... for the fun of it, come join us in the skies above Rantoul during WFFC 2006!!!