How to tell someone that they are downsizing too fast

[kallend 2,146]

  Quote

Do you think the average person objectively thinks more about a risk/benefit analysis system or just kind of "goes for it" based on how "cool" something is perceived to be.

I'm guessing most people just "go for it".

Last time I ventured a guess on request, based on personal experience, Derek jumped on it because I previously said (and believe) that arguing from anecdote is inappropriate.

So I'll repeat what I said above:

"I believe the responsibility the community has to its less experienced members is to make sure that they understand the risk and receive appropriate education and training."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[freakydiver 0]

I'm very accurate, but I'm not comfortable with 180 hooks even though I know what I'm doing IMHO.

Also - "I believe the responsibility the community has to its less experienced members is to make sure that they understand the risk and receive appropriate education and training."

Oh so true, is it me or is this attitude dissappearing from the skydiving community. Are more and more hotshots getting under small ass canopies and getting their friends interested in them as well? All I hear now when I'm on different dzs is VX this or Crossbrace that. A medium loaded Stilletto will STILL hang with VX this and Crossbrace that.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[kallend 2,146]

  Quote

You're response is correct IF that person is not jumping with or landing near anyone else. They DON'T have the right to take someone else out due to their own stupidity/ego and failure to heed expert advice. Yes, accidents happen. Duh. So why not minimize the risk to others (you know, keep it to yourself)?

Can you give me the statistics for 3rd party injuries caused specifically by low time jumpers jumping high WL canopies? Is this a real or imagined risk?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,111]

>If your friend (or anyone else) wishes to take a risk that you
> consider unacceptable, I really don't see that it is any business of
> yours (or Ron's, or Derek's, or Bill's, or Chris's.....).

We seem to differ on that point. Experienced jumpers have a responsibility to protect younger jumpers from making the same mistakes over and over. Instructors and S+TA's have an even greater responsibility. It is "our business" that someone with 39 jumps wants to jump a Stiletto 97. Citing Darwin is the coward's way out; we are all in this sport together.

>We should not be in the business of telling them which risks are
>unacceptable for them based on our beliefs.

We ARE in the business of doing just that. We do it dozens of times before they get to the 100 jump point. As a result, more people survive their first through 99th jumps.

[bclark 0]

When I see someone who I think has no business downsizing talking about it, I ask them this...

Can you land the canopy you have now standing up, where you want to, in any wind conditions, every time? Can you land your parachute using a braked approach? Can you land your parachute straight in without hooking it?

If not I think that you probably should consider spending some more time learning on your current parachute.

[Scrumpot 1]

  Quote

Can you land the canopy you have now standing up, where you want to, in any wind conditions, every time? Can you land your parachute using a braked approach? Can you land your parachute straight in without hooking it?

If not I think that you probably should consider spending some more time learning on your current parachute.

And somebody bent on buying that canopy will answer you honestly? These are the ones (that won't) that are "the problem" in the 1st place. Although these are all very nice & appropriate, good questions, in reality, a much sterner approach is needed in these cases, IMHO. The guy who gives you the HONEST answers to these already knows them himself and is not the person we are necessarily worrying about here.

Find SOMEBODY that this jumper RESPECTS & if the concern is VALID, get them to talk to him (her) about it. That's really the only way.

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[bclark 0]

I agree. However sometimes even that will not help... If you really get someone hell bent on buying that small parachute. We had one of these at our DZ a while back. He would solicit advise from all of the experienced jumpers, including the DZO and S&TA. When we all told him that we would not support him flying that small canopy at our DZ he went to the DZ next door to buy it. Unfortunately, skydivers are ultimately responsible for their own safety, and ultimately (with the exception of kicking them off of the DZ) are free to be just as stupid as they want to be.

[kallend 2,146]

  Quote

>If your friend (or anyone else) wishes to take a risk that you
> consider unacceptable, I really don't see that it is any business of
> yours (or Ron's, or Derek's, or Bill's, or Chris's.....).

We seem to differ on that point. Experienced jumpers have a responsibility to protect younger jumpers from making the same mistakes over and over. Instructors and S+TA's have an even greater responsibility. It is "our business" that someone with 39 jumps wants to jump a Stiletto 97. Citing Darwin is the coward's way out; we are all in this sport together.

>We should not be in the business of telling them which risks are
>unacceptable for them based on our beliefs.

We ARE in the business of doing just that. We do it dozens of times before they get to the 100 jump point. As a result, more people survive their first through 99th jumps.

I repeat:

"I believe the responsibility the community has to its less experienced members is to make sure that they understand the risk and receive appropriate education and training."

Which is not the same as saying leave it to Darwin.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,111]

>"I believe the responsibility the community has to its less experienced
> members is to make sure that they understand the risk and receive
>appropriate education and training."

So if someone simply refuses to listen, refuses to get that education and training, and are on a course to killing themselves, you . . . let them die?

>Which is not the same as saying leave it to Darwin.

How is it different?

[kallend 2,146]

  Quote

>"I believe the responsibility the community has to its less experienced
> members is to make sure that they understand the risk and receive
>appropriate education and training."

So if someone simply refuses to listen, refuses to get that education and training, and are on a course to killing themselves, you . . . let them die?

>Which is not the same as saying leave it to Darwin.

How is it different?

What you interpret as refusal to listen may just be someone who has a higher risk tolerance than you. My sister thinks any skydiver is a Darwin award candidate and that I'm pig-headed for not heeding her warnings. Most whuffos would agree with her position. Why is she wrong? How is that different?

It's all a matter of where you place the acceptable risk threshold. I think BASE is an unacceptable risk. If I don't do my utmost to ban BASE jumping does that mean I'm callously leaving BASE jumpers to Darwin?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JDBoston 0]

She is wrong because she does not know nearly as much as you know about skydiving, especially in terms of how many ways there are to mitigate risk.

This is the COMPLETE opposite of the (common) situation where a less-experienced skydiver takes risks that more-experienced skydivers would deem dangerous/unnecessary. They are not taking these risks because they know better but choose to do it anyway due to a "higher risk tolerance." They are taking them because they do not fully appreciate & understand the risk.

That's why more experienced people have a responsibility to step up, put people on the spot, and risk some bad feelings in the name of safety.

IMHO,

Joe

[Tonto 1]

I like that. Printing incident report now, will get 2 people to sign this weekend...

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[kallend 2,146]

  Quote

She is wrong because she does not know nearly as much as you know about skydiving, especially in terms of how many ways there are to mitigate risk.

Disagree - she knows that 1 in 1000 skydivers die every year after all risk mitigation is in place. She doesn't need to know the risk mitigation details to understand that skydiving is risky. The 1 in 1000 is a statistic going back years, and far better as a risk indicator than any data presented thus far by the proponents of this BSR. As far as she's concerned we're all Darwin award candidates, and I find it hard to dispute that except on the basis of my advanced age (I have already done all the breeding I wish to do so Darwin doesn't apply any more).

Once the decision is made to take up a risky pastime, the choice of where to put the risk threshold should be up to the individual. The obligation we have is to make sure the individual is well informed enough to make his or her own decision; I don't think we should be making the decision for him/her.

I am firmly in favor of education and training, and of stiffening up the license requirements. I am in favor of collecting better data. I am opposed to additional rules and regulations.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skybytch 273]

  Quote

I am firmly in favor of education and training, and of stiffening up the license requirements. I am in favor of collecting better data.

Points we can all agree on, I think.

I'd like to see the debate turn from what statistics are needed/not needed to prove that a BSR is justified back to what specific things can be done to get education and training available to everyone.

How can better data be collected?
How can education and training be made available to everyone (and, more importantly, be utilized by everyone)?
What needs to be added to the license requirements, and how/by whom will it be verified?

[CanuckInUSA 0]

  Quote

I'd like to see the debate turn from what statistics are needed/not needed to prove that a BSR is justified back to what specific things can be done to get education and training available to everyone.

I'm not a hard-core swooper or anything like that (at least not yet). But I am a student of high performance landings. If your DZs do not have canopy control courses, I think one think that instructors, coaches and yes more experienced jumpers at these DZs need to do with the newbies concerning canopy control is two fold. Explain to them what flat turns are and the importance of practicing these flat turns on almost every jump. Secondly, when a newbie sees a more experienced jumper performing a high performance landing, they need to explain to the newbie how it is done (so that we don't get newbies doing low toggle turns).

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 2,146]

  Quote

  Quote

I'd like to see the debate turn from what statistics are needed/not needed to prove that a BSR is justified back to what specific things can be done to get education and training available to everyone.

I'm not a hard-core swooper or anything like that (at least not yet). But I am a student of high performance landings. If your DZs do not have canopy control courses, I think one think that instructors, coaches and yes more experienced jumpers at these DZs need to do with the newbies concerning canopy control is two fold. Explain to them what flat turns are and the importance of practicing these flat turns on almost every jump.

This comment surprises me. We were taught how to do flat turns in the FJC and expected to practice them while on student status. Isn't everyone? Isn't it in the "standard" curriculum? How hard can it be to teach? What are they teaching if they don't teach this stuff?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Okay, I don't want to step on the feet of instructors and/or formal coaches. But it seems that sometimes the topic of flat turns is forgotten by the newer jumpers. How many accidents have occurred because of a panic turn when a flat turn could have turned the accident into a close call? So what I'm talking about is for the more experienced jumpers to spend time with the newer jumpers (be it while waiting for a load or while it's beer-thirty) talking to them about canopy control. Once again I know I'm not a hard-core swooper, but I have told some of the lesser experienced jumpers who may see my attempt at a high performance landing and I tell them that I didn't do it with toggle turns but instead with a front riser carving turn.

Educate ...

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 3,111]

>What you interpret as refusal to listen may just be someone who has
> a higher risk tolerance than you.

It has often been my job to tell those two things apart. Sometimes they accept the risk; sometimes they don't understand the risk.

>My sister thinks any skydiver is a Darwin award candidate and that
> I'm pig-headed for not heeding her warnings. Most whuffos would
> agree with her position. Why is she wrong? How is that different?

I have a little more experience in skydiving than your sister. Not to be politically incorrect, but some people know more about skydiving than other people. I would trust Brian Germain to tell someone they are taking an unreasonable risk with their wing loading over your sister.

>If I don't do my utmost to ban BASE jumping does that mean I'm
>callously leaving BASE jumpers to Darwin?

I didn't know you chose to jump at a DZ where BASE was legal. If people at skydive chicago are indeed jumping with single canopy rigs, and dying as a result, I would hope you care about your fellow skydivers enough to point out that that's illegal.

Unless you are active in BASE, though, why would you want to mess with a non-skydiving activity you know nothing about and are not involved with?

[billvon 3,111]

>We were taught how to do flat turns in the FJC and expected to
> practice them while on student status. Isn't everyone?

Since your FJC and student program is significantly different than ours, I teach them during water training, which is the last "official" time I can get people together. There is no requirement they practice them though, and most don't.

>Isn't it in the "standard" curriculum? How hard can it be to teach?

ISP teaches braked turns, which are a bit different than flat turns. In addition, a braked turn learned on a Navigator doesn't really translate to a flat turn on a Stiletto 107.

[kallend 2,146]

  Quote

>What you interpret as refusal to listen may just be someone who has
> a higher risk tolerance than you.

It has often been my job to tell those two things apart. Sometimes they accept the risk; sometimes they don't understand the risk.

>My sister thinks any skydiver is a Darwin award candidate and that
> I'm pig-headed for not heeding her warnings. Most whuffos would
> agree with her position. Why is she wrong? How is that different?

I have a little more experience in skydiving than your sister. Not to be politically incorrect, but some people know more about skydiving than other people. I would trust Brian Germain to tell someone they are taking an unreasonable risk with their wing loading over your sister.

My sister knows about living and dying and fatality rates. She concludes that being a skydiver is unreasonably risky while you and I don't. You know about landing a canopy and conclude that someone with <500 jumps under a small canopy is unreasonably risky when they don't. I say it's the individual's call in either case.

  Quote

>If I don't do my utmost to ban BASE jumping does that mean I'm
>callously leaving BASE jumpers to Darwin?

I didn't know you chose to jump at a DZ where BASE was legal. If people at skydive chicago are indeed jumping with single canopy rigs, and dying as a result, I would hope you care about your fellow skydivers enough to point out that that's illegal.

Plenty of people at SkydiveChicago jump with single canopy rigs. Just not at the DZ and not from airplanes.

  Quote

Unless you are active in BASE, though, why would you want to mess with a non-skydiving activity you know nothing about and are not involved with?

Because I'm concerned for my fellow humans and don't wish them to die a premature and messy death. Well, actually I think it's their call and not mine. Just like I do with canopy size selection.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,111]

>My sister knows about living and dying and fatality rates.

Sorry, I'm not going to get sidetracked into arguing about whether or not your sister understands the risks of skydiving, and the odds of dying under X wingloading, better than an experienced jumper does. It's simply a worthless argument. Believe what you choose in that area.

>Plenty of people at SkydiveChicago jump with single canopy rigs. Just
>not at the DZ and not from airplanes.

Then it's not germane to this argument. If you want to go to the BASE forum and argue about restrictions on, say, Perrine, feel free.

[FrenchGuy 0]

A few things to remember, God only gives chastisements (punishment) to the ones he loves (i.e. tempting the holy spirit)

In the same way people only get concerned about people they love. If I hated someone at my DZ and they were doing something stupid, I would let them continue and not say anything, but that has never been the situation, any time someone is putting themselves in a dangerous situation, I will approach them, because I love them cause that's what life is about. Unfortunately people get offended sometimes and pull a Burger King (have it your way)
If someone is concered about you, consider if flattering, because people actually give a shit about you - pretty rare in the real world

[kallend 2,146]

  Quote

>My sister knows about living and dying and fatality rates.

Sorry, I'm not going to get sidetracked into arguing about whether or not your sister understands the risks of skydiving, and the odds of dying under X wingloading, better than an experienced jumper does. It's simply a worthless argument. Believe what you choose in that area.

It is a parallel to your argument. Your risk tolerance is not transferable to other people any more than my sister's risk tolerance is transferable to you. The difference is that she just advises me that I'm reckless and stupid, whereas you want the power to control other people's choices and behavior. I guess I'm just pro-choice in this.

>Plenty of people at SkydiveChicago jump with single canopy rigs. Just
>not at the DZ and not from airplanes.

Then it's not germane to this argument. If you want to go to the BASE forum and argue about restrictions on, say, Perrine, feel free.

[FrenchGuy 0]

Another point, if someone keeps downsizing, you'll probably notice that they are a poor canopy pilot. A good pilot will learn to tear shit up with any canopy, and after they have maxed it out, then they downsize. I have heard of one skydiver who was not allowed to compete at a swoopcompetition because he was considered dangerous to himself - that's not being rude or hateful, that's love!!! Still after this he continued to downsize( haveing poor skills still on bigger canopies) I have heard that his current wingloading is at 4.18 jumping a 50 something vx, but I don't believe it, nor would I want too if it was actually true

[andy2 0]

[QUOTE]If I hated someone at my DZ and they were doing something stupid, I would let them continue and not say anything[/QUOTE]

Someone flying a WL too high for them endangers the entire load. Someone recklessly diving into you from above on a pocket rocket will quickly become both YOUR and HIS problem. As previously stated in this thread, flying a WL too high is recklessly selfish.

---------------------------------------------
let my inspiration flow,
in token rhyme suggesting rhythm...