hukturn

Takes me a while...I only read on the throne. But, they really "jumped right in" pretty quickly. The Seven Hrry's seems to be more action filled than I would expect so early in the book.

Yeah, but so has diablopilot.

You have to be honest with yourself. If you are not comfprtable, why would you force it? I took a couple of years off after the birth of my son. Only to help with taking care of him. But, I stayed in touch with my friends and I came back. I have known people who met through skydiving, got married, had great times skydiving and then stopped after having children. They can not live with the possibility of their child losing them. But, I would rather lose my life with my son knowing that I lived it, rather than shuddering behind a weak veil of safety. And, I belive in ths because I never want my children to live their lives rather than just falling in line with the other Corporate lambs to the slaughter. Live your life whether it means skydiving or not. Make the choice that is best for you and your family.

Section 6.1C3c is a a continuation (or building block) from the recommendations of Section 5. Therefore, it is a "Recommendation", not a "requirement" or "regulation". Thus making it a commonly accepted safety procedure but not a USPA directed policy. In fact, Ection 6 Summary states "Information in this section provide _guidance_ for...". It does not state "provide _requirements_ for..." and thus indicating that it is not policy. I made the statement with the intention of using it as an illustration that we can self-educate without USPA intervention. I did not realize that it would introduce a shift in the discussion of the thread. I believe that Bill and I see eye to eye in that nothing will work without education and application from DZ Management. I simply believe that it can be done at a local level without a USPA policy. I absolutely provide right of way for lower jumpers.

So...do you think that we will see their kids in the local Little League soccer matches?

Simple...she is hot and she is coming to the US with a high profile sports professioal. Why else for the exposure? In truth, she is coming to the US for he man. She has missed me so much. Shhhh...don't tell Beckham.

Really? I never let the same person pack my main and reserve. Even when I have used packers. I find that amazing that anyone would. When I throw my main, I am looking for a reason to chop. I have just had too many too low. If I can see the problem and I can fix it or deal with it to a safe landing, I will. But if I have any doubt, it's gone. Canopies? Reserve is larger than my main. Rig1 - Sabre 135 and a PD143R, Rig 2 - Sabre 120 and a PD 126. Neither are the smallest I have jumped, neither are as difficult to steer than my round experiences and I have more F111 jumps than I can shake a stick at. So, I am not afraid of either canopy in either of my rigs.

They should "sit them down". And if they don't, then you should sit them down. You reap what you sow. If you want to jump at an unsafe DZ with unsafe people, let unsafe acts go unaddressed. Accidents, of any type, are not restricted to any particular experience level. So, while your statement is true, it is not the sole cause for accidents. I am sure there are many other commonalities if we investigate further.

BillVon and Remwha; It looks like Bill understands what I am saying. But, he can not cite any non-student USPA reg which states that the lower jumper has the right of way...it just does not exist. Unfortunately, Bill, because the term "significant" is interpretable, it is debatable that there are "significant numbers" of deaths in this category. But, I would have to agree with your statement indicating that judgement and skill may equally help to avoid this type of incident incident. But, what about the others? This is not still just your personal quest against the Page/Hollar incident, is it?!? Just to clarify; The statement is with regard to how we adopt "rules" as policy. The lower jumper does nto have the right of way by and USPA policy other than in the ISP's which do not govern non-students. But still, our forefathers thought this was a great idea so they adopted it as standard practice. I like it...it works...it is a great idea...but it is not a USPA policy. Now, our forefathers taught (told, actually) us and taught us that the lower jumper has the right of way. So, we accepted it and propagated the belief. And, thus...education. So, we accepted a non-policy as gospel and it has probably saved alot of people. But this is a clear example that we do not need USPA policy to be safe and to do the right thing. We just need to make people believe that it is the right thing to do. Now, DZ policy is a different story. There may be a rule at the DZ which states that the lower jumper has the right of way. So, your assumption that I hook past students is debunked. In fact, I believe I am just about one of the safest skydivers you may ever meet. So, perhaps you should stop by my DZ and meet me before you assume that I put others at risk.

Ohhhh, yeah!! Even the most beautiful tiny rig will not look so great after a bounce. If the reserve is not what you need, get something that will work for you.

You have no idea what you are saying and you have taken my statements completely out of context.

"I'm not sure I'm reading this properly. Are you saying that the lower jumper does NOT have the right-of-way?" That is right. Lower jumpers having the right of way is an ISP...not a BSR. But, we have inherited this thought process through constant education from peers and instructors over a very long period of time. Thus, we accepted it as policy when it is not. And, it is a fine example of how we can change the way people think even if it is not truly a rule. Education, my friend. "I certainly agree here but...I'll believe it when I see it" I agree with your agreement

Absolutely. I agree. It is the DZ's decision to determine what fits their needs and their rules should be abided. If your (or mine) desires do not fit in at the DZ, we will simply need to shop for another or search out alternate landing areas as approved by the DZ Management. I still believe that education is the key, Just as many have discussed. It is through education (albeit inaccurate) that many jumpers believe that the lower jumper actually has the right of way. If we continually push for awareness and training, we will continue to evolve multi-disciplines in a safe (realatively speaking) manner. With all of this said, I still believe that it will take a tough S&TA and DZO to make this work. Rules need to be rules and they apply unilaterally. The AFF/I who breaks the rules should be in the same trouble as the weekend warrior who makes an honest error. The rules need to be decided and applied 100% of the time to 100% of the people.

Well stated and often overlooked.

But you do have control over where yo land. Maybe not as much, but you do have control. My first reserve ride was on a 28' Phantom (Thanks, Mark!) and I have 36 round military jumps on rounds. I am stil here and I have never broken any bones. So, I suppose rounds can do the job. After all, the whole world is a Dropzone! Edit; Oh yeah, and in a dual out scenario, your main and reserve won't downplane you, if you have a round.

Until you get a fair bit of canopy experience, I would discourage it. I think that the most aggrivating factor is the limited number of jumps you are making. You are of realatively low experience level with minimal frequency of jumping. There is plenty of time (hopefully). So, look for a canopy pilotiong course before really pushing too hard to swoop.

24

Details, Bill...details.

Actually, saying it six different ways are representative of reasons. Even if I am opposed to the Big Brother theory, that is alright. But that is not the sole reason for my opposition. My agenda is my own and I do not expect you to accept it blindly. So, here are a few of the highlights (below) of my discussions which present reasons I oppose the BSR. While you may not agree with them does not make them invalid. If you wish, I can copy and paste more. They are all through the threads. Sorry you could not find them. Judging by your past participation in these threads, you don't even understand the BSR. The first thing you should try to do in a debate is to understand your opponent and the topic. At least Kallend and BillVon have done that. Jun 18, 2007, 5:28 AM - So, my biggest concerns is this. Stop making choices for me Jun 18, 2007, 6:05 PM - This is not about Regulations. This is about poor choices which may affect our future. Let the DZ's manage the problem at a local level. We live by too many rules already. Jun 19, 2007, 8:59 AM - I think that DZO's are responsible and should take ownership Jun 19, 2007, 10:39 AM - …the most knowledgeable person becomes the DZO or the S&TA. Jun 19, 2007, 11:13 AM - Now what you have is still a training issue since I have NEVER known Danny to be grounded. Jun 19, 2007, 6:43 PM - Ultimately it is ging to rest on the shoulders of the S&TA or DZO to enforce anyway, no matter whether it is local policy or BSR. Jun 19, 2007, 7:04 PM - My only point of contention in this is that the "teeth" are still going to be at the DZ level. You do not need USPA for that Jun 21, 2007, 3:47 PM - Wake up...even a BSR will not GUARANTEE DZ compliance. BSR's are violated everyday and S&TA's let it pass everyday. Jun 21, 2007, 4:25 PM - No. People invest greater interest when they develop the plan. Jun 21, 2007, 4:25 PM - People (including DZ's) will enforce their own policies if they create them. Let the DZ's make their own decisions on how to handle the canopy collision problems...not USPA and BSR's. Jun 21, 2007, 4:47 PM - If the S&TA or DZO is too weak to do their job, fire them. It takes tough people to make tough decisions. This is not a sport for the meek and at the S&TA level even less so. The only remaiing arguements are; 1) We don't need a BSR 2) A single rule (square peg) may not fit every DZ (round hole). What I am saying is that each DZ should measure the problem and institute functional rules. Those rules may include seperate LZ's...but maybe not. It is dependent upon the needs and abilities of the DZ. Jun 28, 2007, 6:46 AM - It sounds as though there are several DZ's which already have plans in place and who take these matters seriously. Jun 28, 2007, 8:20 PM - If we impliment a BSR, then you take the ownership of the plan away from the DZ Jun 22, 2007, 6:10 PM - To compare, my proposal that you rebut indicates that the DZ has full control over their DZ and should impliment polices to address a growing problem Jun 22, 2007, 6:10 PM - Like I said, a BSR (round peg) may not fit every DZ (square hole). Jun 24, 2007, 6:32 PM - But, the bottom line is that your BSR is too vague in nature. Jun 24, 2007, 6:32 PM - I don't misrepresent your proposal. You have simply failed to present a functional BSR. You are taking the responsibility from the DZ Jun 25, 2007, 6:03 PM - But, your proposal will force DZ's to comply with a practice in spite of their safe record. So, you are misteken, your plan can force actions onto responsible people and safe DZ's. Jun 26, 2007, 7:32 PM - This BSR proposal is not about making things safer. It is about segregating HP canopies from docile. Jun 26, 2007, 7:32 PM - You can generate enough speed from a double front riser on a 7 cell to do grevious harm. But, there is nothing in the proposal to stop that. No, this porposal is simply a means of pointing fingers at those nasty swoopers. How are you going to define "high performance". Wind load? structure of the canopy? The intended manner of flight? There are simply too many variables for a blanket policy. Each DZ can assess their situation and determine policy.

Just wanted to ask how the discussions went with the BOD, BillVon.

"That's right". But don't forget to add that I am in support of DZ's determining how to address at their DZ. This means that they would take a voluntary action. I am not really sure why it is unknown to you. Maybe you could cruise back through the discussions and pull out a half dozen reasons that I have posted.

Absolutely. And Style jumpers should not be allowed to shoot accuracy on the bottome end. Same scenario, right?!? In fact, we should not even allow a 90 deg turn onto final. Since this would be performed at a different altitude than a lower wing load. "Yes" let's make everyone do everything exactly the same. Just line up like lambs to the slaughter. Oppress anyone thinking outside of the norm. Do not let anyone push their limits. Where would we be? No swooping, no wing suits, no RW, no big ways, no high altitude jumps, no freeflying...no skydiving. Just falling from a plane and doing nothing more that pulling a ripcord. Oh, we wouldn't even do that because the static line would handle it. I do not mean to sound attacking, it just comes out that way. I agree that this does not need to be complicated. Many DZ's have made decisions on how to handle who lands where and proper seperations along with good patterns. So, swooping should be a non-issue.

I have had really bad luck with Tony Suits. It is really strange, I know, because he has so many out there. But, I have never had one fit properly. The two that I have had the best luck with are D'Annunzio and Michigan. But, an old friend told me that "it's the indian, not the arrow".

BTW - Be gald she told you. My wife went through an entire AFF course, had her A license bought gear and everything before her father knew. So what? Well, she did it all on his credit card that he gave her to use while in college.

I am not a fan of the 1 time Tandem jumper. I believe it has done more to deteriorate the brotherhood of sport. I know not many people share this opinion, but it is my position. With that said..I think that if anyone is considering skydiving then it is a good choice. Foremost, it allows them to experience freefall for a reasonable fee. Bottom line is that if they don't like the sensation, it may not be a sport of choice for them. So, I loke the idea of Tandems as an exposure to the sport. It is a really nice "ice breaker".