Reserve Canopies

[Gravitymaster 0]

Suppose your current DZ suddenly required a particular brand of Reserve Canopy because the DZO thought it was better than other brands. Would you continue to jump there?

Please feel free to comment.

[phoenixlpr 0]

I'd like to have the amount of free time you have.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I'd like to hit "yes if I already had that brand" but in reality that ruling could easily drive a lot of friends away (as they'd have different reserves) and I would probably move DZ's to continue to jump with my friends.

ps, while canopy choice is personal... so is who the hell jumps at the DZ you own. If it's your DZ you can make up the rules. It's the DZO who has to fill in the paperwork if you biff in... if you don't like his rules, give your money to someone else. Same goes for your AAD thread... it's a personal choice who the DZO lets jump at their DZ.

[rasmack 0]

Have you encountered a DZ that does this?

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Have you encountered a DZ that does this?

Not yet.

[outlawphx 1]

I think this poll should of been a multiple answer thread.... Where are there narrow minded DZO's that you're implying exist?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I think this poll should of been a multiple answer thread.... Where are there narrow minded DZO's that you're implying exist?

Who is implying anything? I just wondered where people draw the line.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I just don't think it's our line to draw. What authority do we have to force a DZ to let us do what we want? - it's their DZ, thus their decision what goes on there.

Sure we should have the right to jump whatever reserve/main/container/AAD/whatever that the FAA (etc) say we can. All we have to do is find a DZ that will let us do it on their property. If the DZ doesn't want us to use that item on their property that's hardly a decision we have any right to argue about.

The only power we have as jumpers in the issue is that of the market ecconomy and the almighty dollar... personally I think we would be just as "wrong" trying to force a DZ's hand that way as they would be by mandating a specific reserve... if not more so.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I just don't think it's our line to draw. What authority do we have to force a DZ to let us do what we want? - it's their DZ, thus their decision what goes on there.

Of course it's your line to draw. You have plenty of authority. You can choose to buy the required reserve and then continue to jump there, or you can choose not to and jump some place else.

Quote

Sure we should have the right to jump whatever reserve/main/container/AAD/whatever that the FAA (etc) say we can. All we have to do is find a DZ that will let us do it on their property. If the DZ doesn't want us to use that item on their property that's hardly a decision we have any right to argue about.

I agree, you have no right to argue. The DZO can do whatever he wants. If he wants to require you to jump a container or canopy he manufactures, you have no right to argue. You can however choose where you jump and where you spend your money.

Quote

The only power we have as jumpers in the issue is that of the market ecconomy and the almighty dollar... personally I think we would be just as "wrong" trying to force a DZ's hand that way as they would be by mandating a specific reserve... if not more so.

It's not wrong to vote with your wallet. I do it all the time. There is a store near me that offers great prices but their return policy sucks. A few years ago, I could return anything at anytime for any reason. Then they changed it to a policy that it must be done within 14 days. Then it had to be within 14 days with a reciept and they would only give a store credit. I don't purchase very much at that store anymore because their policy changed to the point that I drew a line. Many people continue to shop there, because they can live with it. If they eventually said, no return for any reason, I'm sure there would be fewer people shopping there than there are now.

[mr2mk1g 10]

We agree then on all of that - I would simply say that I think it would be equally bad of the jumping community to vote with their feet with a view to changing the DZ's mind. It's the owners DZ. We have no right to mandate what they let people jump there.

Sure, walk because you don't want to use the reserve system they mandate - but your poll options indicate that you're asking if people would walk even if they did have that reserve system and simply wanted to make the point that the DZ was somehow overstepping the bounds by mandating people use a specific reserve.

I can't agree that there is some kind of point of principal that a DZ ought not be permitted to mandate what happens on their property and that if they did people should walk in protest even if the ruling didn't directly effect them.

[peregrinerose 0]

Is there a reason why a DZ would do this to begin with? It makes about as much sense as mandating a certain color of jump suit because they feel it is better for visibility or something.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

We agree then on all of that - I would simply say that I think it would be equally bad of the jumping community to vote with their feet with a view to changing the DZ's mind. It's the owners DZ. We have no right to mandate what they let people jump there.

Then we don't agree. I think you have the absolute right to vote with your feet. What other mechanism does a consumer have other than to bitch and whine? If I institute policies my customers disagree with, they discontinue our business realtionship. I must think very carefully about the effect any new policy will have on them and be willing to accept that it may cost me business. If it costs me enough business, I must then consider whether the loss of income is greater than my desire to enforce my policy.

Quote

Sure, walk because you don't want to use the reserve system they mandate - but your poll options indicate that you're asking if people would walk even if they did have that reserve system and simply wanted to make the point that the DZ was somehow overstepping the bounds by mandating people use a specific reserve.

The poll option is there because even though some may be in compliance with a new policy, they may see a slippery slope or feel that their friends who aren't in compliance, aren't being treated fairly. It's also no coincidence that I created both polls so people could hopefully examine where their line is. I also like the Wing-Loading poll.

Quote

I can't agree that there is some kind of point of principal that a DZ ought not be permitted to mandate what happens on their property and that if they did people should walk in protest even if the ruling didn't directly effect them.

DZO can institute any policy they want. If you don't like it because it affects you personally or you don't like that it imposes a burden on your friends, you have the absolute right (and some would say responsibility) to vote with your feet and your wallet.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Is there a reason why a DZ would do this to begin with? It makes about as much sense as mandating a certain color of jump suit because they feel it is better for visibility or something.

I don't condemn any DZO for having a policy he/she feels strongly about. Many just have an opinion about safety and are doing what they feel they need to to keep relationships with the surrounding community intact so their business can continue to operate successfully. I certainly don't begrudge them the right to run their business as best they see fit.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Of course you have the right (no one can force you to jump at a particular DZ). But does the existence of the right make it right to exercise the right?

Do you honestly think there is some kind of point of principal that a DZ ought not have any rights to decide what goes on at their airfield? Do you really think it is "right" that jumpers bully an owner into doing something they consider to be less safe? (bullying them into doing something more safe is another question again)

It's the DZs choice who jumps, how, when and what while they're a visitor on their property. We can choose not to jump there because they wont allow us to use the equipment we want to... but to suggest that we ought not jump there on a point of principal; because you believe that you as the customer should be allowed to dictate to the owner what he is and is not allowed to do with his DZ?

Moving because you want to jump with friends who can't jump there or because you yourself fall foul of the rules is different.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Well, my friend. We are just going to have to agree that we disagree. A jumper has as much right to make decisions on where he jumps for whatever reasons he has, just as a DZO has the right to make decisions affecting his business for whatever reasons he has. Whenever the 2 conflict a decision has to be made.

[riggerrob 643]

If my DZO/employer tried to tell me jump a specific BRAND of reserve, we would have a long and loud argument!
My Amigo 172 reserve has two rides (one by me) and I have no intention or trading it for any other brand.
My DZO jumps a Smart reserve - packed by me - and I think Smarts are great reserves.
But if he wants me to buy a Smart reserve, he will have to offer me a DEEP discount.
If he refused to offer me a deep discount - and I was not willing to move to another DZ - I would buy a Smart from another dealer, just to spite him.

I can understand banning certain classes/vintages of reserves.
For example, when he banned round reserves three years ago, nobody complained because only a handful of visiting jumpers used them any more.

Like wise, if he insisted on banning first and second generation reserves (Safety Flyer, Safety Star and 5-cell Swift) I would have no qualms. Steering lines on 5-cell Swifts are more trouble than they are worth.

Similarly, if my DZO tried to limit third generation square reserves (Firelite, Laser, 5-cell Swift, Raven, etc.) to wing loadings of less than 1.3, I would support him on that.

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

I don't condemn any DZO for having a policy he/she feels strongly about. Many just have an opinion about safety and are doing what they feel they need to to keep relationships with the surrounding community intact so their business can continue to operate successfully. I certainly don't begrudge them the right to run their business as best they see fit.

I wasn't questioning their right to do so, as a private business, they can have whatever guidelines they want to, and jumpers can deal with it or jump elsewhere. Not a thing wrong with that at all. I was just curious if there was an actual logical reason as to why they would specify brand of reserve?

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[mr2mk1g 10]

True. I'm just shocked that at the time of writing the majority of people chose "No, even if I had that brand, I think canopy choice is personal.[and would therefore not continue to jump there]"

I.e. those who answered that think that a DZ has absolutely no right to interfere with what they jump while they are a visitor on the DZ's property. They think that if a DZ tried to exercise their right to mandate how people behave while guests on their property then the jumpers ought to move DZ's in protest that the DZ had been so bold as to exercise that right.

The question you posed does not examine whether or not jumpers have the right to choose what they jump - it examines if jumpers think DZ's should have any say in what goes on at their DZ. Clearly many people here think a DZ has no right to decide what happens on their property, because if a DZ did choose to decide what happens on their property they would walk in protest that they exercised that right.

As I said I am shocked. People obviously believe that property owners must bow to the demands of the people who visit their land and that they should face economic sanctions if they don't.

[nate_1979 9]

i think its more what someone else said.. if my friends cant jump there (because they have the wrong reserve) i'm gonna go where they go..

FGF #???
I miss the sky...
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.

[billvon 3,114]

Perhaps a more likely question would be:

"If your DZ outlawed a certain type of reserve (round, Swift 5-cell, old Raven) that you used, would you change it?" Several DZ's _do_ prohibit round reserves.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I.e. those who answered that think that a DZ has absolutely no right to interfere with what they jump while they are a visitor on the DZ's property. They think that if a DZ tried to exercise their right to mandate how people behave while guests on their property then the jumpers ought to move DZ's in protest that the DZ had been so bold as to exercise that right.

More like - people feel it's perfectly acceptable to boycott a DZ that would attempt to impose arbitrary restrictions on jumpers's right to select their own life saving equipment.

If the restriction had a basis in safety, good chances are that the boycott would only be effective in removing the bad element from the DZ.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Perhaps a more likely question would be:

"If your DZ outlawed a certain type of reserve (round, Swift 5-cell, old Raven) that you used, would you change it?" Several DZ's _do_ prohibit round reserves.

Or if your DZ instituted a policy that didn't affect you specifically, how far would you be willing to go to support your friends that it did affect. I'm not talking about something involving a safety issue, I'm talking about strictly a gear preference.

[wmw999 2,587]

Quote

I'm not talking about something involving a safety issue, I'm talking about strictly a gear preference.

Who's to say that rounds, ravens, etc are unsafe? And who's to say that a DZO who declared that only PD reserves were to be jumped did so because of preference? Maybe he thinks they are safer (we certainly hear that often enough on dz.com). Personally, I think Billvon's analogy was spot on.

That said, any particularly onerous rules will limit the number of people who jump there, and will affect the jumping enough that it would probably end up as a club DZ of people who think alike, and whatever tandem students they put up.

Me? Well, when I had a round reserve, I didn't do a popular local demo (Ballunar onto NASA grounds). I wouldn't have jumped in Rhode Island, but I did jump in Arizona. Of course, when the rig was new, I jumped it wherever I darn well wanted to .

For many people, the answer would be "how did it affect the local scene." If the rest of their 4-way team left, they probably would too. If all their friends left, they probably would too. It'd probably work that way for me, too.

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)

[billvon 3,114]

> I'm not talking about something involving a safety issue, I'm
>talking about strictly a gear preference.

Except every gear issue I've heard about at a DZ _has_ been a safety issue, at least in the opinion of the DZO. For example, a DZO might well decide to ban Raven reserves built before a certain date because he feels that the line failure issue has not been resolved. Or he might decide the Swift with its line-release feature is unsafe. Or the Reflex catapult or Vector Skyhook is too sketchy/unproven a system.

If he's a PD dealer and he bans all non-PD reserves to sell more gear, that's a different issue (of course.)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

> I'm not talking about something involving a safety issue, I'm
>talking about strictly a gear preference.

Except every gear issue I've heard about at a DZ _has_ been a safety issue, at least in the opinion of the DZO. For example, a DZO might well decide to ban Raven reserves built before a certain date because he feels that the line failure issue has not been resolved. Or he might decide the Swift with its line-release feature is unsafe. Or the Reflex catapult or Vector Skyhook is too sketchy/unproven a system.

If he's a PD dealer and he bans all non-PD reserves to sell more gear, that's a different issue (of course.)

Which brings us back to the discussion about who should be making these type of decisions. If it's truely a safety issue with a piece of gear, the FAA should issue an A.D. or the manuf. should ground the equipment. Why should the DZO feel he has the right to ground it?

I do find it interesting that skydivers generally have no problem with a DZO usurping the authority of the FAA or the Manufacturer as long as it doesn't affect their gear choice.