robinheid

OP needs to learn how to read: Above the total fatalities graph is a section that lists "Fatalities by Year." (See attachment) It clearly shows that known worldwide fatalities declined approximately 21 percent from 71 in 2004 to 56 in 2011, and just 25 so far in 2012. 44 How many are poorly trained wingsuiters? LOL... How many were wingsuiters, period? In the "other" category (78 total fatalities), there are two wingsuit fatalities: Eli's 2009 too-low-to-make-it-over-a-ridge and a 2012 Croatian low-pull in a wingsuit. Dunno about the Croat but Eli had 15,000 jumps and several hundred wingsuit jumps. Two wingsuit fatalities out of 750+.... Yeah, we really need to take care of this crisis by creating a whole new bureaucracy. Funny thing is, there are three tails strike/aircraft collision fatalities in the "other" category -- none of which involved the heinous horrendous hideous wingsuit. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

What a pile of puppy poop. The bigger picture is first getting a handle on our fundamentally piss-poor basic parachute pilot training because of our psychotic insistence on maintaining a training system that focuses on freefall FUN skills instead of parachutist SURVIVAL skills. Hassling a small subset of the sport parachuting community while ignoring this massive, fundamental failure is idiotic on its face: Let's ignore the severed femoral artery of our fundamentally flawed basic training paradigm and put a bandaid on the skinned knee of a few fools who need to be reminded in the door not to open their wings until they clear the tail. Brilliant big picture thinking, old chap. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

OP needs to learn how to read: Above the total fatalities graph is a section that lists "Fatalities by Year." (See attachment) It clearly shows that known worldwide fatalities declined approximately 21 percent from 71 in 2004 to 56 in 2011, and just 25 so far in 2012. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

False premise; Ergo, all that follows is irrelevant. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

I rest my case. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

LOL... no, I was born free -- but sorry the post was so long; I didn't have time to write a short one. Funny thing is, DWE's entire gambit, my post, and this entire thread can be summed up by the 26 words in your tag line: " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley So, thanks for contributing! Oh wait... is that mean, too? 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

I can't speak to any others in the "against" camp, but my argument against this ridiculous proposal is based on historical fact: Establishing the crony-driven bureacracy known as AFF has led us directly to the state of affairs today, where we have too many people flying parachutes they don't understand or know how to fly -- with all of its attendant carnage. Don Yahrling, whom I knew, jumped with and liked since our mid-1970s days at Fort Bragg and Raeford, became the lord of AFF, and whether you became an AFF instructor or not depended entirely on whether you kissed Don's ass satisfactorily or not. It took YEARS to solve this -- and then it basically just metasticized when Rick Horn and a couple of other guys got the plum assignment of AFF Course Director. It took years after that before the system finally settled down to become more meritocracy than kiss-ass-istocracy. This history is already repeating itself at Skydive Elsinore, where people are kicked off the DZ for criticizing DWE or his "SEWS" program, either in person or online -- and even a cursory look at DWE's entire skydiving "career" shows that the probability is high that the Yahrling Effect will rear its ugly ass again if DWE's program is established systemwide. More importantly, however, by freezing "AFF" course design at its initial level -- when even the skygods jumped 200+ sf canopies, basic parachutist training was not allowed to evolve for decades because to change the system to reflect reality would have negatively impacted the crony perks of its gatekeepers and power brokers. The most glaring result of that is our current problems with poor parachute piloting as a consequence of the freefall FUN skills focus of "AFF" instead of the parachutist SURVIVAL skills focus that we should have. But how did we seek to "fix" this problem? Not by discarding the freefall FUN-focused AFF system and replacing it with one focused on teaching people to understand and properly operate their parachuting equipment -- but to a massively complex system that creates the illusion of change when all it really did is expose DZOs to greater liability if they do not follow every labyrinthine element of the new training system. Bottom line: The only critical issue about wingsuiting is tail strikes from fools spreading their wings out the door instead of falling clear of the plane first. It seems to me that instead of erecting another unnecessary crony-driven bureaucracy, all we really need to do is have a one-quarter-page "wingsuit waiver" that says something to the effect that: "I acknowlege and understand that I put the jump aircraft and everyone aboard it at risk if I open my wings at exit and hit the tail. I therefore promise to spread my wings no sooner than one second after exit -- and that I or my estate will pay for all damages to the aircraft if I violate this promise." The point of such a waiver is not to exert legal force but to do exactly what Yosemite does by requiring everyone to get a backcountry permit before going off the pavement: education. By requiring the permit, offered without condition, cost, or qualifications, it guarantees that people will at least have the information they need to know in their hands, and this does in fact go a long way toward steering people into the right conduct (such as not pooping or peeing in the creeks, hanging their food in trees instead of in their tents, et al). Beyond that, DZOs should be able to limit or ban wingsuit jumping if they don't want it at their DZs, just as they do with swooping -- and did in the past with CRW. They built those businesses with their sweat and $$$ and are entitled to run those businesses exactly the way they want to. 44 P.S. For those who don't know me, I started wingsuiting in 1998. In 1999, Jeb Corliss and I made the first wingsuit jumps from the Petronas Towers and a few years later, I jumped with Jeb and Luigi Cani on the first canopy-wingsuit RW dives. I've never been into big flocking dives, but I appreciate all of it and also think that learning to fly a wingsuit is not that big a deal, and for the most part can be boiled down to three primary elements: 1. Don't spread your wings until you're clear of the plane. 2. Do practice touches way high until you're confident that the wing won't bother your pull. 3. Pull way high the first few times just in case you were wrong about #2. There are of course multiple other sub-elements to learning how to fly a wingsuit on airplane jumps, but if you follow these three, you'll be able to save yourself and not hurt anybody else (or anybody else's airplanes). And you don't need a new bureaucracy to do that. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

There you go again. The problem is not education. The problem is establishing an unnecessary new bureaucracy with all of its attendant, gatekeepers, power brokers -- and associated costs. The whole premise is ridiculous. When CRW started, it was banned from many DZs, people were kicked off DZs for doing it, and if any member of the Golden Knights was caught doing it, they were kicked off the team. And, of course, there was outrage and hand wringing over the few deaths directly attributable to this new subset of parachuting in which only a few USPA people took part. Now, of course, it's embraced as a legitimate part of the sport, it is part of FAI world competition, the Knights have their own CRW demo team, and CRW deaths declined even further -- all without a "CRW pilot rating" or any of the other balderdash associated with this proposed wingsuit rule/regulation/bureaucratic superstructure silliness. Long tale short, we figured out a way to work it out -- to educate -- all without creating another unnecessary and thus crony-driven bureaucracy. 44 P.S. I piloted the first 8-stack in the world built outside of California (CCR-55) and was a principal author of the original USPA safety and competition rules for CRW -- which did not, by the way, include the establishment of "CRW Instructor" ratings or mandatory CRW training courses, etc etc, ad nauseam, or any of the other crapola outlined in DWE's preposterous proposal. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Get a grammatical grip, Billy: Getting lung cancer from smoking is not a potential issue. Killing yourself and/or others when you don't know how to fly an airfoil parachute is not a potential issue. As for that "whoosing" sound... that's the air going out of DWE's plan to create an unnecessary bureaucracy to "solve" a problem that does not exist. But then, you know that, so why are you defending him and his immoderate snarkiness? 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Probably the most intelligent post I've read in a long time. That said...Hitler has become a close personal friend And he's doing incredible things in a Ghost 3 wingsuit, too. Probably the most revealing post I've read in a long time. Of course you would think it was intelligent, DWE... you're the guy who will most benefit from the imposition of your new bureaucracy. But really, how intelligent can it be to "get out in front of a potential issue?" You know, potential -- as in something that doesn't exist but might at some statistically unquantifiable point in the future? Oh wait, never mind... you think Hitler is still alive and that you're his close personal friend. Who else do you count among your close personal friends: the Easter Bunny and honest politicians? 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

We are being compared to Hitler. I am just shaking my head right now. Is that really going to help wingsuitters as a whole? Not to mention it is a bit off kilter and distasteful, but what do I know. I guess it is out of our hands and into the members. Let's see what they think about it and then move forward accordingly. If we are moving forward with it then input would be great. If we arent moving forward then alternate educational plans are in order. I think I am going to bail out of this for a bit, otherwise I might start getting compared to Al Queda, serial killers, or rapists. Thanks Talk Soon. Rich Hey Rich, Sorry you got all jangled by the Third Reich analogy, but I did provide an alternative comparison -- not to al-Qaeda or serial killers but to Goldilocks and the Three Bears. For the other readers of this thread, please find below the entire post, which riffed on Skybytch's post that it's goofy to go after a few unschooled wingsuiters while neglecting the longstanding and continuing issues with a lot of unschooled canopy pilots. Before we go there, though, I want to give Rich a big shoutout for being one of the most proactive and dedicated board members I've known of in my almost 40 years of parachuting. You're a great asset to sport parachuting and your efforts on its behalf are valuable and much appreciated -- and that includes your participation in the current wingsuit silliness (talk about swatting a fly with a sledgehammer!). Bottom line: The whole premise is ridiculous. When CRW started it was banned from many DZs, people were kicked off DZs for doing it, and if any member of the Golden Knights was caught doing it, they were kicked off the team. Now, of course, it's embraced as a legitimate part of the sport, it is part of FAI world competition, and the Knights have their own CRW demo team -- all without a "CRW pilot rating" or any of the other balderdash associated with this proposed wingsuit rule/regulation/bureaucratic superstructure silliness. Long tale short, we figured out a way to work it out -- all without creating another ridiculous and unnecessary bureaucracy, with its attendant gatekeepers, power brokers -- and added costs. (BTW, I piloted the first 8-stack in the world built outside of California (CCR-55) and was a principal author of the original USPA safety and competition rules for CRW.) To sum up, Rich, no disrespect to your slot or efforts intended; you're kinda like a lawyer (no offense intended there either!!) who defends an unpopular defendant. What you're doing is part of your responsibilities as a BOD member and I applaud you for it, even if the whole thing is in fact reminiscent of... Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Anyway, here's the whole post from the General Forum vis a vis the recent BOD meeting: There's been an outcry to get some form of canopy related instruction/rating program in place for years now. How many noobs have died or injured themselves flying a wingsuit before 200 jumps? How many noobs have died or injured themselves flying a canopy that is beyond their ability to safely land in less than ideal conditions? And yet it's wingsuits that get the attention. What happened to "education not regulation"? Oh, that only applies to canopies.... One more indication of how screwed up USPA is. --skybytch Well, yes and no. It's easier to pick on the wingsuit community because there are so few of them compared to the "canopy community," which by definition includes everyone. The political and operational dynamics of what's happening here is remarkably like what happened in the Third Reich: Hitler targeted Jews not so much because he hated Jews but because there were too many Catholics and not enough communists. USPA never went after the skysurfing community because there weren't enough of them, and they don't go after the canopy community because there are too many of them. The wingsuit community, though, is just about right. And if the Third Reich analogy's too politically incorrect, then go with Goldilocks and the Three Bears: Canopy community too big, skysurf community too small, wingsuit community just right. Chomp! Same situation, though; a bureaucracy always chooses the path of greatest (perceived) benefit for the least amount of effort. All this blah-blah aside, however, I'm witchoo 'bytch: USPA should focus more on the still-festering, significant and growing problem of hot canopies + unschooled pilots instead of bothering a small subset of its membership that is not causing much of a problem. Unfortunately, this will never happen as long as USPA maintains its ongoing primary training focus on freefall FUN skills instead of parachute SURVIVAL skills -- especially when, once again, we have a Designated Skygod Expert driving a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist for reasons that relate only peripherally to safety. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

There's been an outcry to get some form of canopy related instruction/rating program in place for years now. How many noobs have died or injured themselves flying a wingsuit before 200 jumps? How many noobs have died or injured themselves flying a canopy that is beyond their ability to safely land in less than ideal conditions? And yet it's wingsuits that get the attention. What happened to "education not regulation"? Oh, that only applies to canopies.... One more indication of how screwed up USPA is. Well, yes and no. It's easier to pick on the wingsuit community because there are so few of them compared to the "canopy community," which by definition includes everyone. The political and operational dynamics of what's happening here is remarkably like what happened in the Third Reich: Hitler targeted Jews not so much because he hated Jews but because there were too many Catholics and not enough communists. USPA never went after the skysurfing community because there weren't enough of them, and they don't go after the canopy community because there are too many of them. The wingsuit community, though, is just about right. And if the Third Reich analogy's too politically incorrect, then go with Goldilocks and the Three Bears: Canopy community too big, skysurf community too small, wingsuit community just right. Chomp! Same situation, though; a bureaucracy always chooses the path of greatest (perceived) benefit for the least amount of effort. All this blah-blah aside, however, I'm witchoo 'bytch: USPA should focus more on the still-festering, significant and growing problem of hot canopies + unschooled pilots instead of bothering a small subset of its membership that is not causing much of a problem. Unfortunately, this will never happen as long as USPA maintains its ongoing primary training focus on freefall FUN skills instead of parachute SURVIVAL skills -- especially when, once again, we have a Designated Skygod Expert driving a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist for reasons that relate only peripherally to safety. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

And check out this excellent mainstream media story about it... really well done. Heck, they even use the word "canopy" properly. Rook and Melissa probably deserve kudos for edumacatin' the reporter so that s/he was able to write this technically detailed and accurate account of this exceptional accomplishment. Good on ya, mates! 44 P.S. Was it 136 or 138? The Perfesser says 136; the photo caption says 138. Can someone clarify -- and maybe provide a personnel list? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

LOL... one of my favorite "thank your packer" moments was during the People's Choice awards a few years back when Jennifer Love Hewitt won for something, and the first people she thanked was craft services (the people with the food and drink!) because she said she could never make it through a day without them. To date, she is the only person I've ever seen who thanked craft services or any of the other "packers" who make it possible for people such as herself to do what they do. Thanks for sharing a great story, OP. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Funny, I've ground-crewed may balloons. Touchdown to drive-off never took more than 30 minutes - without hurrying - unless there was a long walk involved. Doesn't matter, though. If the pilot decides he needs to stay on the ground, that's the end of it. If McNasty doesn't like it, call the cops and let them explain things to him. Well, if you're willing to spend even a half-hour in the presence of an out of control land owner who gets more and more angry because you're not leaving as he demands, then have fun with it. Good luck. It's kind of funny how you berate others for their "bad attitude", and yet here you are advocating ignoring an angry land owner and just doing what you want anyway. Sorry, no he didn't. He said if the pilot determined it was too risky to take off again, then call the police if necessary so they can sort it out, with the aim of maintaining safety and minimizing conflict. The idea is to maintain control and be professional, and in this case the balloon operator did not have control of his passengers, and was not prepared for an unappreciative landowner. Chuck suggested a reasonable procedure by which safety could be maintained even if it conflicted with the wishes of the landowner and, as best as I can see, did not exhibit any atittude at all -- just a proposed solution. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

I wasn’t in the balloon; I had jumped (skydived) out of the balloon about 30mins prior (if you comment, at least read the thread). If some small children accidentally kick a ball into yours or (Chucky’s) yard, do you run out and keep their ball and run them away? I’m done here on this thread and “hotbed of insecurity”...carry on. Sorry, you sound like such an effing whuffo I forgot that you actually skydived out of the balloon -- but like another poster, I too am curious if you landed without permission on the landowner's private property. Your ball-in-the-yard analogy is pathetic; the kids aren't making money by throwing their ball into the landowner's yard without compensating him for it or asking for permission, the landowner in question did not keep the balloon, and as someone else already mentioned, there is in fact a difference between adults and children. Really, dude, with "thought" processes such as you've displayed in this thread, you really ought to think about selling your gear and giving up your driver's license before you kill yourself or, worse, someone else. That way, you can study up on private property rights and good manners while you're riding the bus or the tube. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

My, my, what a sense of entitlement you have. Landowner is angry because a guy uses landowner's property without permission or ex post facto compensation to make money for his business -- and you think the landowner is out of line? Gee, next time I'm in London, let me borrow your car without your permission and drive some people around for hire -- and then apologize but not compensate you for using your property without permission. Better yet, how about landowner takes your skydiving gear without your permission and does some well-paid demo jumps on it, then apologizes for taking it and promises not to do it again, but doesn't offer you any compensation? From each according to his worked-for property, to each according to his entertainment needs, is that it? I knew UK long ago descended into socialist decay, but I didn't realize it had already done away with the concept of private property. Finally, though, even though it's clear what you are, the full responsibility for this confrontation falls on the the balloon operator because he failed to: a) properly brief his passengers on how to act; and b) did not, as another poster mentioned, have "mea culpa" items such as champagne, gift cards, et al, in the event of inadvertent landings on the property of unwilling-to-participate landowners.. But you made everything far worse and if I was running the show at Perris, I think I'd invite you to jump elsewhere because I sure wouldn't want you interacting with the DZ neighbors if you landed off-site for some reason. You'd probably not only argue with them. you'd probably want them to pay you for the demo. 44 P.S. How was it that the other passengers were ordered to stay in the balloon for safety reasons -- but you got out to take pictures of the "idiot" and then pointed the camera the wrong way? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

+1 Really, in all seriousness. everyone should stop whining about the legal issues related thereto and turning this into a complicated problem when all it is, when you get right down to it, is another beer line. Land in Mr. Horseowner's field, pay up, just like you would for landing inside the beer line. As Fast said, be sure Mr. Horseowner knows the steps being taken, to include the advisories issued to all resident and transient jumpers, and the penalty for landing in his field -- and ask him what his penalty fee preference is: Green bottles, cash, first-born child, whatever. This starts a dialogue and minimizes conflict in a traditional way. That's what beer lines and related penalties are all about; minimizing conflict and administering justice without getting all "official" about it. Mr. Horseowner just wants some respect, for his property -- and for his horses, which are also his property... and his responsibility. I grew up with horses and still ride. If I was Mr. Horseowner and had yahoos landing in my field, I'd be P.O.ed too; I've seen way too many horses get torn up running into fences and stepping in holes because some moron couldn't -- or wouldn't -- control his dog... or his parachute. We are always whimpering about how people don't understand us, and cause us problems because of it. Well, this whole thread exhibits zero understanding of horses and horse culture. I mean, somebody ridiculed the report that he was talking to horse lawyers all over the country -- well, guess what? He probably has been because horse people are a tribe precisely like skydivers are a tribe. And tribes respond to tradition and respect and understanding. In this situation, I'd start with a case of beer or wine for each of the most recent transgressions, and go from there. And buy a big ol' bag of OATS too so the horses get their "beer" too. That'll make him laugh and then it'll all be good. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

The main thing "awesome" about being a TI is the responsibility. Once one loses sight of that, things can go to hell in a hurry. The truth. Matt +1 Funny story on that score. The Bush twins made tandem jumps at a SoCal DZ in July 2001, and the same TI was tasked with taking them both because he was the DZ's best. So I asked him afterward how it felt to have the lives of the President's daughters in his hands. His reply: "I just kept saying to myself, 'Don't hurt the President's daughters or the IRS will audit you for life. Don't hurt the President's daughters or the IRS will audit you for life.'" 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Nonsense. ... or perhaps it's actually impossible to fly in and out of China on commercial airlines? My bad. I meant to say: Take this to the bank. There is NO general aviation in China. Period. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Back in the day I made three "rig" trips, of 3,000, 5,000 and 7,000 miles, respectively. Rigs were bigger then, but it went in the large frame backpack with everything else I took, primarily to protect it from the elements, with the added benefit of not exposing it to accidental deployment. Had no saddlebags or even a windshield, just a big sissy bar and a luggage rack. Sleeping bag, a few clothes, maybe a tent, and a few tools. (A Jap bike, though, so other than chain adjustments, didn't use them.) Those were good days, and one of the best parts was always having the "oasis" of a DZ along the route. Always nice to have members of the tribe wherever you go. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Take this to the bank: There is NO civil aviation in China. Period. Jeb Corliss did his wingsuit cave flythrough from a military helicopter. So if you email him again, ask him what his affiliation is with the Chinese military and which Chinese military aircraft the DZ will be using -- and, of course, why the Chinese military would be using foreign civilians to fly them. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Thousands of jumpers don't realize how NOT rare this is. It's not just Lodi; I saw a recent video from a different dz where the uppers got hooked up in freefall (don't ask, I don't have it and it's not online). If all this bad publicity increases the attention paid to passenger harnessing by every ride operator, maybe we can actually deliver the "safe" Disneyland experience that we advertise. +1 This is precisely what I've been trying to get across on the Instructor and Incidents forum threads on this subject. Instead of competing to see who can say the nastiest things about the TI and/or Lodi, we need to ask a vital question: "How can a guy with 3K tandems and 9K jumps over almost 30 years make so many mistakes and misjudgments on one jump?" It goes beyond just having a bad day to a SYSTEMIC problem with large-volume tandem operations. Human Factors 101; environment influences the decisions and judgments of the people operating therein and, in the case of large-volume tandem operations, the process paths and associated decision trees helped to "lead" this TI into those mistakes and misjudgments. I contend that the root cause is a pervasive, industry-wide lack of clearly-defined tandem process paths for "in spec" and "out of spec" customers, amplified by the fact that, in parachuting, the old adage of "Why is there never time to do it right, but always time to do it over?" does not apply. Treating an old, overweight, physically infirm customer (out of spec) as "just another tandem" (in spec) is an example of the former. Forgetting to hook up uppers is an example of the latter. In both cases, Lady Luck earned overtime pay beating back the Reaper. Next time we may not be so lucky -- and that is why we need to think less about bad publicity and bashing the TI and/or his DZ and more about tuning up the process industrywide so that the process path is more deliberate in general and that the process path for in spec and out of spec customers is more sharply defined. One place for us to LEARN: Skycoasters. When Bill Kitchen introduced them, a singular part of his process was and remains a full videotaping of the preparation and gear-up process, and a very specific prep=-gear-up procedure that had to be followed to the letter by each and every staffer at each and every Skycoaster, regardless of their roles. Parachuting does not have that, and as this incident shows, when your process is flawed even the best of us can make mistakes and misjudgments that can result in death. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

If a person can safely jump a main of x sq ft, they should be totally fine under a 7-cell square reserve if x or more sq ft. If not, the main is TOO FUCKING SMALL. This is not the fault of anyone but the jumper (except very new guys who get bad advice from others). Respectfully disagree. While you may indeed be able to handle a highly loaded main, your reserve is an EMRGENCY LIFESAVING DEVICE for when your main turns to poop -- OR (drum roll, please) you are partially or totally incapacitated for some reason. Landing under a highly loaded reserve when you are unconscious or unable to steer or flare it is probably going to kill or severely injure you, regardless of what a hotshot pilot you are when you are awake and all your body parts are working properly. That is what's so psychotically silly about the gods sporting all these de facto one-parachute rigs; if for some reason they can't function at 100 percent, they're basically dead whether the reserve opens or not. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Is there any documented case of someone canceling a tandem because of this video? Two separate groups showed up today specifically _because_ of the video; they wanted to see what it really looked like. Both ended up booking, one jumped. The other would have jumped had it not been for weather. It's demonstrable; skydiving interest increases after any incident reported in the news. It may not be the kind of 'marketing' that is good for the sport, but it does spark awareness that often turns to more business. +1 Kinda funny how the whuffos get it but not the skgods. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."