skybytch 273
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,124
QuoteQuoteChoice has nothing to do with it. Ask your auto insurer whether young males have higher premiums than old farts or young women. Different rules for different folks based on who/what they are is quite normal.
Insurance companies charge higher rates to particular drivers because they are a corporation seeking to maximize profits. If an insurance company could get away with banning all male members between the ages of 20 and 30, it wouldn't surprise me of they did. Because no personal choice is involved, they can't. They can, however, choose to ban all drivers who choose to drink and drive.
It has everything to do with personal choice.
Males have a greater chance of dying from prostate cancer too, and as you say, they have no choice about being male. I've yet to see a prostate cancer awareness program targeted at females for that reason.
If maleness is a risk factor (and it looks as if it is) then why not acknowledge it?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 10
QuoteI listening, please start to tell me exactly how many. Exactly what was their wing loading, canopy planform
type, jump numbers.
Too many to list....I don't keep a personal record of my lectures to newbies.....But I can tell you that I know I have warned 3 people that are now dead, and I can think of 5 that still have not jumped again.
All had less than 500 jumps and over a 1.4 WL.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Ron 10
QuoteIf maleness is a risk factor (and it looks as if it is) then why not acknowledge it?
Where is your HARD data?
BTW, I agree, but to argue like you here. Where are your facts?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
QuoteIf maleness is a risk factor (and it looks as if it is) then why not acknowledge it?
When did I argue that it wasn't? My point was that it does not follow logically that since a wing-loading restriction based on age and gender would not make sense, then neither would a wing-loading BSR based on experience.
A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All
kallend 2,124
QuoteQuoteIf maleness is a risk factor (and it looks as if it is) then why not acknowledge it?
When did I argue that it wasn't? My point was that it does not follow logically that since a wing-loading restriction based on age and gender would not make sense, then neither would a wing-loading BSR based on experience.
Like the story of the drunk looking for his lost keys under a street lamp. He'd lost the keys elsewhere but was looking under the lamp because that was where the light was.
"We have identified A as the cause of the problem, but we can't regulate A so we are going to regulate B instead." I can imagine the government doing this.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,124
QuoteQuoteIf maleness is a risk factor (and it looks as if it is) then why not acknowledge it?
Where is your HARD data?
BTW, I agree, but to argue like you here. Where are your facts?
Just referring to Michele's post. If I had hard data, I would have written "and it is" instead of "and it looks as if it is").
However, mine's every bit as hard as yours.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote"We have identified A as the cause of the problem, but we can't regulate A so we are going to regulate B instead." I can imagine the government doing this.
I have no idea where you're coming from here.
Those proposing the BSR have identified the problem as low turns under small canopies by inexperienced pilots leading to death when a lighter loading may have let them live with only an injury. We can regulate this.
Those proposing the BSR have not identified 20-30 year old males as the problem.
See two posts below for reason for edit.
A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All
QuoteWe have identified low turns under small canopies by inexperienced pilots leading to death as the problem.
Low turns under ANY CANOPY by inexperienced canopy pilots is a problem.
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
Steve:
Just to point out where I stand: I have too little experience in this sport to argue whether the BSR is justified. Having said that, if it were put to a vote I would vote for it.
I was taking Kallend to task for attempting to argue against the BSR using an irrelevent point: the fact that we cannot regulate whether someone is a 20-30 year old male has nothing to do with whether we can regulate whether a low-time jumper can jump a highly-loaded canopy.
I will go ahead and edit my previous post to clarify my stance.
Just to point out where I stand: I have too little experience in this sport to argue whether the BSR is justified. Having said that, if it were put to a vote I would vote for it.
I was taking Kallend to task for attempting to argue against the BSR using an irrelevent point: the fact that we cannot regulate whether someone is a 20-30 year old male has nothing to do with whether we can regulate whether a low-time jumper can jump a highly-loaded canopy.
I will go ahead and edit my previous post to clarify my stance.
A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All
kallend 2,124
QuoteQuote"We have identified A as the cause of the problem, but we can't regulate A so we are going to regulate B instead." I can imagine the government doing this.
I have no idea where you're coming from here.
.
Those proposing the BSR have not identified 20-30 year old males as the problem.
Ron just said (one or two posts up) that he agrees with me about the young male factor.
Why don't you take a turn at the fatalities web site, and see for yourself the male/female ratio for fatalities under canopy. Then compare to USPA's membership stats for overall male/female ratio in the sport.
Being a young male IS a risk factor, just like it is for driving. Insurance companies have found a way to discourage young males from getting powerful cars (by giving them skyhigh premiums) so you can't say that there's nothing that can be done about it. It just needs a little more thought.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 10
QuoteRon just said (one or two posts up) that he agrees with me about the young male factor.
So all of a sudden my "quess work" is valid John? Is it becasue you agree with me on this one?
QuoteWhy don't you take a turn at the fatalities web site, and see for yourself the male/female ratio for fatalities
under canopy. Then compare to USPA's membership stats for overall male/female ratio in the sport.
I did this once, and I think that there were more Females dying under canopy than the percentage of female jumpers as a whole...however more Males "hooked in".
Its due to my observation that most Males are more agressive under canopy.
QuoteBeing a young male IS a risk factor, just like it is for driving. Insurance companies have found a way to
discourage young males from getting powerful cars (by giving them skyhigh premiums) so you can't say that
there's nothing that can be done about it. It just needs a little more thought.
So you want to charge males more for a canopy?
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
QuoteQuoteThose proposing the BSR have not identified 20-30 year old males as the problem.
Ron just said (one or two posts up) that he agrees with me about the young male factor.
The fact that Ron agrees with you that males are more likely to engage in risky behavior does not mean that Ron identifies 20-30 year old males as the problem.
A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All
kallend 2,124
QuoteQuoteQuoteThose proposing the BSR have not identified 20-30 year old males as the problem.
Ron just said (one or two posts up) that he agrees with me about the young male factor.
The fact that Ron agrees with you that males are more likely to engage in risky behavior does not mean that Ron identifies 20-30 year old males as the problem.
Why are you so sensitive about this?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
I agree with you 100%. But, after reading what a couple of members of USPA's Safety and Training committee have had to say about it (not to mention the opposition to the idea that has been expressed in these threads), I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of getting any sort of wingloading restriction into either the licensing structure or into a BSR right now.
Since the majority of us seem to agree that canopy control training beyond the A license is needed, why not start there? If after a year or two we're seeing fewer newer jumpers injuring or killing themselves under perfectly good parachutes then we'll know it's working. If we've seen equal or more injuries or fatalities in the same group in the same time frame, we can assume that education wasn't 100% of the answer... and hopefully have statistics to back that up. At that point we might see less opposition to wingloading restrictions.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites