Bolas

I'll be flying in tomorrow now around 4. Can anyone give me a ride from Pensacola Airport to the beach or the DZ? I'll pay in bushwhackers. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

More walk free because it was never reported. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Sure, but they have to duct tape their helmets on... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

All inclusive? Liquor too? Will there be something similar to the Blue Hole jump? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I'll agree that we are not doing our jobs if someone is not fully aware of the risks they are taking, but if they choose to accept them and deal with the consquences, that's their own decision. Direct responsibility of another non altered state adult? No, nor should anybody. We should try to educate them and if we don't agree with what they're doing/not doing, try and stop them, but it's ultimately their decision and they have to deal with the consequences. You can't save people from themselves, only can minimize their effect on others. See my sig. I can thing of two: low pulls and the old batwing wingsuits (Gypsy Moths). Have there been others? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

No it's not. It's skydivers injuring and killing other skydivers. "There is no reason or excuse for someone to die leaving a perfectly good airplane that is functioning properly." We get it, the risk is not worth it to you to swoop. that's fine but why limit what risks others choose to accept? If there was some sort of highly skilled freefall maneuver that resulted in the deaths or injuries of some people, we wouldn't try to disallow you from doing it, only take some steps to minimize the direct risk of those participatings actions to others. I care because I'm not a swooper, a belly jumper, a freeflier, a CReW dog, or a wingsuiter. I'm a skydiver. I like to do it all.

I think Bolas would start an argument in an empty room...... He seems to be pretty good at evading a simple question as well. In 20 years he'll prolly be running his own DZ, or the USPA or something. Nah. More playing devils advocate.

The 8-24 is jumpable again? At one point it wasn't classified right for jumping. If you get a chance to jump either, do it. It's a helluva expensive hop 'n pop but an awesome ride and exiting through the bomb bay doors is indescribable.

I agree. However if one insists on pulling a handle on a rig, pull the cutaway and then don't give it back until the grounding is over or ship it to where they live if the grounding is permanent. This gives them the option of unpacking and rehooking up their main or paying someone to do it versus making them pay to get their reserve repacked. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

How are they being penalized? Skydiving is a business. If you put my other customers at risk, I don't want you here. It's that easy. Example; Foreign wingsuit flies across three lanes of wingsuit traffic. Then he flew 180 to other WS and into tandem traffic. He'd been briefed before his jump. When he was talked to, he refused to accept he'd made an error and refused to agree to not do this again. One of two choices; ~ Obey the rules ~ Jump elsewhere. It's not a penalty, it's that our "customers" are safer for not having that sort of stupidity in the air. Fining people does put money in the DZO's pocket. And?... Just as a traffic fine pays for law enforcement, a DZO might use the fine-fund to develop stronger safety messaging to be posted around the DZ. Robin's model is clean and clear. No dicking around with "not enough slots/is this a fine slot or a paid slot/who wants to take the penalty slot on this load.?" I agree that the DZ is safer for not having that sort of jumper in the air which makes their customers safer which in the long run will likely pay off in less incidents that may require the plane to be shutdown, investigations etc. All of that equals more profit. But in the short term, that DZ basically lost revenue on those slots that jumper would have bought were they not kicked off/grounded. The loss becomes actual if the jumper just goes to another DZ and jumps. Some businesses only think short term. It's unfortunate, but true and one thing that needs to be factored in for a program like this to work. We could call it the SkyRide principle: "If I don't take let this person jump (take the certificates) they'll just go and do it elsewhere." That same short sightedness on not grounding people could do a complete 180 if it started to be viewed as a profit center. Fines are big business moneymakers as they are basically pure profit. The quickest way to lose sight of an original good intention is for people to start making lots of money on it. Additonally, even if the slot fine is used, the DZ is still slightly ahead of if the slot was used normally as since there was less weight, less fuel had to be used. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

From a strictly monetary standpoint: Would these fines assessed by the DZ staff go directly to the DZ? If so, the more they fine, the more pure profit they make. On the flip side, if a DZ grounds someone, that's lost revenue. Perhaps the solution is coming up with a system where the DZ itself neither loses or gains by disciplining a jumper. Ex: If a jumper is fined, the jump ticket fine still takes a slot on the next plane going up so if full, one less jumper can go. If someone wanted to calculate an average per slot profit that portion of the fine could go to the DZ and the rest could go towards a canopy education effort. The penalty is not nearly as important as having a set of rules to enforce. As Robin said each DZ can have its own set of penalties and if your DZO has rules that you think unfairly contribute to his profits, you can either lobby him for different penalties or choose a new place to jump. I've been enjoying the posts by people that are truly contributing to making our sport safer and hope that we can keep the focus of the discussion on things that really matter. Let's get some more contributions about what rules need to be developed. We have the rules already, but they aren't enforced or aren't enforced consistently to all. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

But currently DZs that are doing the right thing are being penalized for doing so. But by the same token we don't want to setup a system that profits from safety as it could quickly turn into "safety." Speed and red light cameras are a good example of this. I've though of a better idea: the slot still has to be used, but not right away. It can be saved for when there aren't enough jumpers to run or turn a load.

I think you've got some amazing ideas here but do see a potential conflict of interest which may also explain why we don't see more response at the DZ level. From a strictly monetary standpoint: Would these fines assessed by the DZ staff go directly to the DZ? If so, the more they fine, the more pure profit they make. On the flip side, if a DZ grounds someone, that's lost revenue. Perhaps the solution is coming up with a system where the DZ itself neither loses or gains by disciplining a jumper. Ex: If a jumper is fined, the jump ticket fine still takes a slot on the next plane going up so if full, one less jumper can go. If someone wanted to calculate an average per slot profit that portion of the fine could go to the DZ and the rest could go towards a canopy education effort. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

That's what an S&TA is supposed to do.

If it's so flawed, why did the USPA create rules for it and even go so far as adding it to the DZs renewal? There has only been ONE low collision (sadly a single fatality) where two jumpers aiming for different landing areas collided. The landing areas being right next to each other was likely a contributing factor as well. All of the other collisions have occured where jumpers were landing in the same landing area: so not space, and definitely not time. They're also extremely loaded. Do you see any advantage to your doing a skydive with other jumpers present? Do we really want to establish the precedent of not compromising the safety of another jumper EVER? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I didn't say larger turns are safer for others. I said longer turns. Ex: a 270 started at 300 feet vs. one started at 600+ feet. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

So you see no additional safety element gained by doing a longer turn from a higher altitude which grants more options for corrections/aborts over a low toggle/riser hook? The avoided situation DSE mentioned that just happened at Elsinore would suggest otherwise. Do you see any advantage to anyone other than yourself to you going faster in the pattern than people around you? Who said anything about being in the pattern? I'm talking about with time or space separation. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I saw it as dumb luck combined with experience/skill. How do you view it? I view it as had he been doing a toggle spiral, or a low toggle/riser hook we'd have had another collision. Hopefully the swooper had practiced aborts prior to this. if so: experience/skill mostly. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

So you see no additional safety element gained by doing a longer turn from a higher altitude which grants more options for corrections/aborts over a low toggle/riser hook? The avoided situation DSE mentioned that just happened at Elsinore would suggest otherwise.

You seem to only here or see what you want to. In Australia they collided at a reported 30 m or around 300 ft. And the jumper that died was doing a speed inducing turn when they hit. How do you know what style of turn they were using unless you were there? They had a lot more time and experience than you do, maybe they had learned some of the same things you are so proud of knowing. The way to determine turn type: Did they use (or normally use) toggles or risers? What type of canopy and at what wingloading? What size turn did they do? What height did they initiate it? How far into the turn was the impact? To carve turn HP canopies with higher wingloadings, you have to start much higher. This is such a self serving statement that it is almost sounds like a joke. Your arguments are really starting to get old and your refusal to admit when you are wrong says a lot about what kind of person you are. You could be the poster boy for the “entitlement generation”. Sparky Replace talking about turn type above with the 45 degree exit separation practice people used to use. We determined it was not only inaccurate and dangerous but have devised several better ways to calculate proper exit separation. Despite that, there are some that still think it works and try to use it. It's the same concept. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

It does not take much to move a tetrahedron. Light and variable can easily move it 90* or more in the middle of a load. Of course you can weight them differently but that is a trade-off. Weight it to not move in light and variable and you will have a number of times the tetrahedron is not showing you the true wind direction. I bet skydivers would look at other wind indicators and follow the wind from that if they thought the tetrahedron was not reliable. The sole purpose of a tetrahedron is to not move during light winds. Landing crosswind or even downwind in light winds is not an issue providing the person knows how to land their canopy. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

A modern carve turn is not a blind turn. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

How is it any different (or worse) at that point from DZs that use windsocks, blades and streamers to set the pattern? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I should have said carve turn above. I do think that in the collisions in Perris and in Georgia (not enough details yet on turn heights for the others including the recon one Austrailia) that they did clear their airspace prior but with the old style of turn they did and the heights it's initiated, (toggle spiral and low riser hook respectively) there was not even an option to alter or abort. There is absolutely NO REASON for anyone to do spiral and/or low toggle/riser hooks for landing. Not only are they far more dangerous for themselves and others they are also extremely inefficient as far as swoop distance. These types of landings are the ones that need to be separated far more than someone doing a modern carve turn. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

That's a big load of horseshit. That's what I have been fighting against. That exact mindset of "All we have to do is get swoopers away and we'll be safe."