billvon 3,107 #76 July 10, 2008 >If speakers conrner lines was applied to the threads on Safety >and Training more often, we might see less fuckups! If everyone attacked each other all the time, we'd see less fuckups? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feuergnom 29 #77 July 10, 2008 Quote If everyone attacked each other all the time, we'd see less fuckups? sure - cause half of the population would either be in hospital or dead The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle dudeist skydiver # 666 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
potatoman 0 #78 July 11, 2008 can't seem to get the vid....please help.You have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to tell you how Fu***** stupid it is. Davelepka - "This isn't an x-box, or a Chevy truck forum" Whatever you do, don't listen to ChrisD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peek 21 #79 July 11, 2008 Quotecan't seem to get the vid....please help. Sorry, I removed it. It was not intended to be permanent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flipper 0 #80 July 11, 2008 I found myself in the door with a very unsafe choice to make. Try and pull my student back into the plane or exit with an exposed drogue... Been there myself ... reckon you did the right thing Flipper Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmacro 0 #81 July 22, 2008 OK, there were mistakes made... but there is one factor I see that has not been brought up. Was it such a great idea to do the tandem if the student was so limited in mobility? If your so tall and have a hard time in a Cessna - why compound it by attaching what amounts to a person with the flexibility of a 2x4 to you for a jump. Had there been a mid-air emergency or other problem you put anyone else in that plane in danger. If the drogue got away from you and snaked to the door, how could you have even considered beating it out? There are a number of scenarios I can think of that would have put the whole plane at risk - due to this persons inability to get around. This is a factor that till now nobody has brought up or considered. Just because a person has the cash for a tandem and a DZO has space doesn't mean that it is safe to put the student up. It's great you are looking back and seeing where changes can be made to be safer in the future. But be sure to examine all the factors involved - and this student was an apparent factor that has been ignored till now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peek 21 #82 July 23, 2008 QuoteWas it such a great idea to do the tandem if the student was so limited in mobility? This is a factor that till now nobody has brought up or considered. Just because a person has the cash for a tandem and a DZO has space doesn't mean that it is safe to put the student up. Oh, believe me, I have considered this often! But the commercialization of skydiving drives the safety aspect right out of the picture in many cases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmacro 0 #83 July 23, 2008 I thought a lot about this thread after I went home yesterday. I wanted to add an additional thought: A lot of people are pointing fingers – some are trying to blame another person, others are defending themselves, and still others are saying that it was just an accident. The reality is that all parties have an equal share of responsibility for an incident that, if not for an extreme amount of luck, could have been disastrous. Here’s how I see it. This is who’s responsible. 1. The student – not realizing his limitations 2. The TI – not realizing the student’s limitations and jumping gear he acknowledges, in hind-sight, might not be maintained as well as it should have been. 3. The DZO – putting the TI in a plane not really suited for his body size (we have weight restrictions – not because a person is too fat, but because the equipment is not generally safe for their weight. The military can drop in tanks and Hummers. Substitute height for weight and you get the same result.), for not realizing the students limitations, and possibly not maintaining the BOC as much as possible. 4. The other jumpers – for not stopping the jump when the drogue came out or raising questions about what happens if they have a mid-air emergency with this student. And lastly… 5. The pilot in command – for not stopping the jump since he states that he knew the TI was dangerous (I’m not saying that he is dangerous. But if the pilot truly thinks this then he has a responsibility to act and he did not) and for not realizing the student had limitations that could endanger the plane. In the end, it’s a lesson that we all become complacent in our sport. We go up and jump over, and over, and over. We assume that the next jump will be like the last. We think that because we are safe and pack carefully, the next guy will do the same. We become complacent that all DZOs are there for the love of the sport and money is not an issue. We all assume that the pilot that takes us up is always the most experienced pilot and will never have an error in judgment. All present that day have ownership in the accident. (Yes it was an accident; it just did not result in injury or damage to equipment.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #84 July 23, 2008 >But the commercialization of skydiving drives the safety aspect right out of >the picture in many cases. Weren't you the pilot in command in this case? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loudtom 5 #85 July 24, 2008 . QuoteLets take a critical look at how you handle situations. Be as critical as you like, I do whatever it takes. You do what you "think" is whatever it takes that may not be what is really needed... you need to admit that!!!!!!tom #90 #54 #08 and now #5 with a Bronze :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
