Ron 10 #1 July 1, 2003 Quoteso you'd be fine if i jumped into every incident thread i could (say the Roger Nelson one) and pointed out that a wingloading BSR WOULDNT have changed this?? Feel free...Although you will look stupid saying it. I only bring it up because its true, and it is relative. It is the reason I started this whole WL thing. QuoteLets keep that kind of discussion to the proper forums, i dont see how dragging it into every incident report it may or may not apply to is helpful to anyone.. How about the simple fact that the WL was a major factor in this incident? QuoteThe purpose of this forum is to report, discuss and learn from fatal and serious non-fatal incidents. Seems to fit in to me."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #2 July 1, 2003 QuoteQuoteso you'd be fine if i jumped into every incident thread i could (say the Roger Nelson one) and pointed out that a wingloading BSR WOULDNT have changed this?? Feel free...Although you will look stupid saying it. I only bring it up because its true, and it is relative. It is the reason I started this whole WL thing. ok in the interest of fair and accurate perceptions since we dont have numbers... i'll now go thru EVERY incident post and point out where your proposed BSR would have made no difference.. if you insist on using the same splash sensationalist tactics of tabloid news so will i.. just remember you asked for it....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #3 July 1, 2003 Quoteok in the interest of fair and accurate perceptions since we dont have numbers... i'll now go thru EVERY incident post and point out where your proposed BSR would have made no difference.. if you insist on using the same splash sensationalist tactics of tabloid news so will i.. just remember you asked for it.... No, you asked if I would be fine with it....And I don't care personally...You will not prove much. You will just add noise. But please do feel free to do this. As long as you agree when it would have been an issue. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #4 July 1, 2003 Further info from the Guidelines: * General safety issues or small and potential incidents should be posted to the Safety and Training forum.*(emphasis mine) A discussion about w/l has been started in two other forums; there is no need to battle here, as well. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #5 July 1, 2003 thats what i'm trying to point out..however others seem to think that we should bring it into every incident report it might have affected...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #6 July 1, 2003 Quote* General safety issues or small and potential incidents should be posted to the Safety and Training forum. Yep it is a general saftey issue, but also it is a factor in this accident... QuoteThe purpose of this forum is to report, discuss and learn from fatal and serious non-fatal incidents. And that is why my 1st post was sent....Zen gets a little over zealous at times. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #7 July 1, 2003 Nope I am just bringing it up as an issue....You want to drag it all together."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #8 July 1, 2003 Fine. It was brought up. It's not like other folk wouldn't have made the connection with the way the original post was worded, either. Now move it back to the S/T forum, alright? Leave this thread for the ACTUAL incident, not another bazillion post thread of arguments and debate on BRSs and whatnot. I find it cluttering and useless. And that's my opinion. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #9 July 1, 2003 I didnt start Zen off..."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #10 July 1, 2003 Ok everybody, and that means everybody, simmer down now.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #11 July 1, 2003 QuoteOk everybody, and that means everybody, simmer down now. Already took it to PM. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #12 July 1, 2003 QuoteI didnt start Zen off... sure you did. the numbers we have dont support your position, so you make inflamatory remarks in an incident thread to draw attention to the few that do.. sensationalist journalism techniques. deceptive and misleading, just like single point perspective it draws attention only to the "hits" on your chart and makes a problem appear more widespread than it actually may be. You've been using "the sky is falling" for the majority of your argument when you cant even answer how large the sky actually is.. how many people have successfully jumped canopies "in violation" of your proposed BSR? until you can answer that you cant even begin to say how many injuries/fatalities from that group is to many...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bbarnhouse 0 #13 July 1, 2003 I am seeing green and red. Please keep your personal remarks in PM. Thanks! BB Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #14 July 1, 2003 Quotethe numbers we have dont support your position, so you make inflamatory remarks in an incident thread to draw attention to the few that do.. I don't know what numbers you have...but the ones I look at say there is an issue. Yes, I don't know how many are in "violation", but I do know that most of the dead hook turners did fit a profile. You just will not admit that...You insted throw out at every chance that since I don't have the number to draw the percentage from that there is not an issue...I really wish you would get a real argument instead of empty arguments. And that was not inflamatory...It was a statment of FACT. You however didn't see it that way. Quotesensationalist journalism techniques. deceptive and misleading, just like single point perspective it draws attention only to the "hits" on your chart and makes a problem appear more widespread than it actually may be. You've been using "the sky is falling" for the majority of your argument when you cant even answer how large the sky actually is.. I can tell you that the profile of most of the dead is under 500 jumps and a high wingload...But since I don't magicly have the numbers of EVERY PERSON WHO HAS MADE A SKYDIVE ABOVE THAT...My numbers don't mean squat? You need to get real. People with little experience and a high wingload are the largest segment of the dead under good canopies...Just because I don't have anumber than NO ONE has, does not change that."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #15 July 1, 2003 >You need to get real. Ron, cut it out. Zen, stop with the posts to every single incident thread to "teach Ron a lesson." This is an important issue; we can and should talk about it civilly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #16 July 1, 2003 Bill I have tried. Zen only posts the same argument, and I am done answering it. I don't have the number of people that have not died jumping over the proposed WL BSR...Becasue nobody has that information. And to be honest it is a weak argument at best. If you take the time to look he would see that there is a profile of the dead people that does stand out. But he is not interested in that. So I am done here. I am not going to argue with him."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #17 July 1, 2003 actually you havent been arguing at all, youve been reasserting your position without evidence to back it up when questioned on the specifics. i fully interested in your "profile". I'm also interested in the rest of the picture to put what you see as a "profile" in real perspective. I want more information first. you are already jumping to conclusions without anywhere near enough data.. bad science. so you've got no issues with forcing a requirement on 30,000+ people that only say 20 actually need (vs "would benifit from") thats pretty draconian..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #18 July 1, 2003 Quoteactually you havent been arguing at all, youve been reasserting your position without evidence to back it up when questioned on the specifics. i fully interested in your "profile". I'm also interested in the rest of the picture to put what you see as a "profile" in real perspective. I want more information first. you are already jumping to conclusions without anywhere near enough data.. bad science. so you've got no issues with forcing a requirement on 30,000+ people that only say 20 actually need (vs "would benifit from") thats pretty draconian.. Only 20 need it? What about all the injuries that never get reported? I've seen the results all across the nation. Open your eyes. You have not been around in this sport long enough to have really experienced this yet I think. A year and a half and 300 jumps doesn't lead me to believe that your arguements against this are substantiated. This trend has been developing over the past 12 years. I've been around for 8 of them. I'm not trying to put you down Zenister for not having been in the sport longer but I think you are seriously missing the point to all this. People, who have been in this sport MUCH longer than you, have a wider perspective of events. The "engineers" on this forum that want a thesis printed in Scientific America before backing anything have really missed the boat in humanity. These numbers are real live people who have been let down by this sport. Personal responsibility? Sure, we have to take personal responsibility. But what about the brotherhood of the skydivers? We look out for each other right? Well, there are those that are trying to look out for people who can not look out for themselves yet. We don't have to do this. We are just fucking tired of picking broken bodies off the ground NEEDLESSLY. Why is that hard to comprehend? Why is it acceptable to you to stand by and so "oh well, he fucked up and now he's dead but that's an acceptable fatality rate so don't bother." Well sir, I for one can not sit idle and do nothing about something I see (and many others do see) as clearly apparent. I support Ron in his effort to bring this before the USPA BOD and get them talking about this. No BSR is going to pass during one BOD meeting. I guarantee the debate will rage on for quite some time. But standing by while we collect enough dead bodies is a disgusting arguement.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #19 July 1, 2003 so whats the increase in participation over the 12 years this "trend" been developing? how about the 8 years youve been observing? do often hear: "there were 2000 more jumpers this year than last"? "did you know we made 25,000 more jumps this year than previous"? "10000 jumpers flew canopies with wingloadings in excess of 1.7 this year"? of course not.. the only statistics that get thrown around the grape vine are the ones that bleed. THAT is the exact problem with basing regulation on perception and not on data, its very easy to only hear the negatives without understanding the total field. people ARE going to die, particularly in high risk endeavors. that is a fact of life and if you cant accept that death occurs then you really need better emotional control and more exposure to life in general. The problem is when they are dying at a HIGHER rate than is acceptible per exposure/participant. "been let down"? why? because they were allowed the freedom to decide what risks to take? because they may have made an error &/or encountered a circumstance that killed/injured them? how is that "letting them down"? the only way they were "let down" is if they expected (and sought) further education and were denied.. have you been to a DZ where someone who asked was told "no i wont teach you."?? no one is advocating "standing by" I fully support bringing this before the board, and commissioning a group to study the issue, to collect the data necessary to make an informed decision, and come up with a complete plan the effectively addresses the issue without creating unnecessary burden on those who are not “at risk”. What i do not support is making regulation without BETTER DATA THAN SINGLE POINT OBSERVATION! we havent even defined what an "acceptable" injury rate is! obviously low is better, but is 10 to many? 20? 50? 100? out of how many exposures/participants? how do you know that the fatality/injury rate is even going up? based on the insufficient numbers we have it may be going down, while the number of injuries/deaths increases! right now you cant tell and that is a SERIOUS problem, accurate data would detect and address issues much faster than grapevine experience.....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #20 July 1, 2003 QuoteBut standing by while we collect enough dead bodies is a disgusting arguement. I agree. And for every dead body or injury we hear about or see, there's several more injuries that never get reported. I've stepped back from the whole debate because I'm not interested in typing the same thing over and over and wasting more of HH's bandwidth. "Scientific data" isn't available. Continuing to ask for something that you know isn't available is not argument, it's being obstructionist. Dogging every post a person makes on the subject isn't argument either, it's simply irritating and yet another waste of bandwidth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #21 July 1, 2003 QuoteI fully support bringing this before the board, and commissioning a group to study the issue, to collect the data necessary to make an informed decision, and come up with a complete plan the effectively addresses the issue without creating unnecessary burden on those who are not “at risk”. What i do not support is making regulation without BETTER DATA THAN SINGLE POINT OBSERVATION! You want to change how BSR's are created without first "commissioning a group to study the issue, to collect the data necessary to make an informed decision, and come up with a complete plan"? What if your proposed new system you wish to impose upon others (sorry, had to use that somewhere) is flawed and results in needed BSR's unable to be passed? Or unnecessary BSR's being passed? The problem is real. A stack of papers filled with data wouldn't change that. The current system has given us our current BSR's. If you feel the current BSR's are acceptable, isn't it safe to concluded that the system that gave us these acceptable BSR's is working? No one will answer my question about the "A" license pull altitude being changed from 2,500 feet to 3,000 feet. Where was the outcry of 'we need to start by "commissioning a group to study the issue, to collect the data necessary to make an informed decision, and come up with a complete plan" before changing the BSR? We have better data than a "SINGLE POINT OBSERVATION!". There are many people that have been in the sport a long time, Instructors, S & TA's, etc that know the problem is real. The proposed BSR would not create an "unnecessary burden on those who are not “at risk”.". It doesn't take all that much to get the education. It isn't an unnecessary burden to either downsize conservatively or get training, and add more education to the license requirements. Hook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #22 July 1, 2003 because bad processes have worked in the past is no reason not to correct them. Just as landing a canopy a single time does not mean you are a good canopy pilot, making a good rule with bad process does not mean the process shouldn’t be fixed.. QuoteWe have better data than a "SINGLE POINT OBSERVATION!". There are many people that have been in the sport a long time, Instructors, S & TA's, etc that know the problem is real all of those are single point observations. Put them together and you have a body of anecdotal evidence, which when combined with non-observational information can be used to draw conclusions. Drawing conclusions without the background data is alot like trying to guess someone’s height from a photograph lacking another reference point. Is the problem "real" or has the perception of the problem increased? (i'm not arguing either here, i'm trying to show you the questions that have yet to be answered) if HP canopies are now more easily available then they are being flown more, has the incident rate for HP canopies increased OUT OF PROPORTION to their increased use? got any observations to show that it has or has not? Hard to say with only single point observations.. think about it... if 10 HP canopies are being flown 1 injury is a significant percentage...if 10000 are flying 100 injuries is not.. without good data it is impossible to determine the scope of the issue____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #23 July 1, 2003 This jumper is reported to have in the area of 400 jumps, hence he would by most likely be or have the equivlent of a "D" license. By your proposed regulations he would be free to jump whatever canopy he wished, so how would your reg's have affected the outcome of this situation? If he had earlier in his progression opted out of your reg's by going to a canopy flight school and then still went too small too fast and pounded in? Then what? More regulation? More education? Education is the key and as up-jumpers we are always learning. Some folks just won't do they're homework or study for their test, some will and do and still fail/femur. ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #24 July 1, 2003 QuoteQuoteI didnt start Zen off... sure you did. the numbers we have dont support your position, so you make inflamatory remarks in an incident thread to draw attention to the few that do.. sensationalist journalism techniques. deceptive and misleading, just like single point perspective it draws attention only to the "hits" on your chart and makes a problem appear more widespread than it actually may be. You've been using "the sky is falling" for the majority of your argument when you cant even answer how large the sky actually is.. A perfect example of the techniques described in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit (previously posted in another thread)... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #25 July 2, 2003 Quotebecause bad processes have worked in the past is no reason not to correct them. Just as landing a canopy a single time does not mean you are a good canopy pilot, making a good rule with bad process does not mean the process shouldn’t be fixed.. You say it is a bad process, yet admit it works. The data you wish to appoint a group to study doesn't and won't exist, because incident reporting isn't mandatory and DZ's have no reason to report incidents. The only motivation for a DZ to report an incident is if they are making a claim on the USPA member insurance. Quote all of those are single point observations. Put them together and you have a body of anecdotal evidence, which when combined with non-observational information can be used to draw conclusions. Drawing conclusions without the background data is alot like trying to guess someone’s height from a photograph lacking another reference point. Is the problem "real" or has the perception of the problem increased? (i'm not arguing either here, i'm trying to show you the questions that have yet to be answered) If you don't like how BSR's are created, fine, write a letter to the USPA and try to get the process changed, but don't attempt to torpedo this proposed BSR because you don't like the process. Quote if HP canopies are now more easily available then they are being flown more, has the incident rate for HP canopies increased OUT OF PROPORTION to their increased use? got any observations to show that it has or has not? Hard to say with only single point observations.. Debating the nature of the problem is pointless. I see it, you don't. I will never be able to convince you otherwise. The data to prove it isn't and won't be gathered. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Quote think about it... if 10 HP canopies are being flown 1 injury is a significant percentage...if 10000 are flying 100 injuries is not.. without good data it is impossible to determine the scope of the issue Then there will never be a canopy control training and education deficit resulting in excessive injuries and fatalities, because the data will probably never be collected, unless the FAA changes it's mind and mandates it. Of course they worked on re-writing Part 105 for 10 years. So maybe in 2040 or so, when the next re-write of Part 105 happens, the FAA will mandate incident reporting. Of course, then it would be possible to argue that the wing loading, number of jumps, currency, density altitude, type and quality of training received, etc hasn't been recorded and therefore, without the proper data, there is no problem, regardless of how many people are injured and killed each year. Edit:Again, no one will answer my question about the "A" license pull altitude being changed from 2,500 feet to 3,000 feet. Where was the outcry of 'we need to start by "commissioning a group to study the issue, to collect the data necessary to make an informed decision, and come up with a complete plan" before changing the BSR? Hook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
