pash

If there was no theft and it was just a marked up clearing house it would still stink of a boiler room. Their (Skyride) only customers are the ignorant. edited: to remove conclusions about a poster

I agree with you. I've only been to 2 DZ's - the first one just recently became USPA affiliated and the other a large DZ. Everyone had been friendly with me for the most part - probably because I am such a likeable person I didn't go in with the expectation that my every desire would be fully catered to. I also understand that I haven't been to many DZ's and I haven't met all the dicks in the world either! My post was just going on the theory that 2 people just sort of "popped" up with similar friendly tag lines and one of them makes a blanket statement about EVERY member of the staff at a DZ. Then they go on to make a blanket statement about the people on DZ.com not being "friendly." jason edited: to make sense

now that's FUNNY!

The one consistent thing is that no one is friendly huh? I disagree - I am a new jumper and the overall attitude of the people at the DZ have been friendly as have the people on this forum. While some have been directly impacted by Skyride I have not. Others have not. They are still entitled to not accept Skyride and they are entitled to stop any illegal activities. They have a right to look a tandem student in the eye and know that it was an even price for everyone. They can feel good in knowing that they didn't selectively target people who were ignorant as to common prices and locations of DZ's. They didn't take advantage of people. From what I have seen, skydiving is a business. But it's also a community and I guess a lot of people just don't like someone else in the community getting screwed. jason -live and love and do both like it's the last day and do it forever and never say anything bad about anyone and try to be really really friendly and have really nice tag lines on multiple accounts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice one! Good of you to put that out there for everyone - with that said, check out what Billvon posted as well as the others. One thing they've all clued me into when reading posts is always check in with your instructors / coaches / highly experienced skydivers at your dropzone of choice as your primary point of reference. And good luck to you in furthering your skydiving career safely! I'm looking into wind tunnels myself as they seem like a great way to accelerate learning - I've haven't been to one yet. cheers, jason

re-read his reply to you. He gave 2 pieces of specific advice and never said liar. He said troll. I'm sorta new around here but I think it's someone who doesn't provide any info about themselves and then asks a loaded question, possibly with the intent of stirring up trouble. Check his advice (that's A) and the troll-thing will disappear if you make yourself known and stick around (that's B)

WOW - that card expired when I was 5 years old!! I would hate to think we would have to go back to something restrictive like that rather than police ourselves as we should.

Maybe I am a byproduct of over-emphasis on training but EVERY piece of advice I have ever hear agrees 100% with what Ron said: Change variables one at a time. Do not change so many variables for the first time on one jump. Lest ye owe much beer. Go to a new DZ with semi-familiar gear. Try a new jump at a familiar DZ with familiar gear, etc... My $0.02 from someone that could easily be in the same situation. Try changing one thing at a time - work up to each new variable. And if she does it anyway - BLUE SKIES and BE SAFE!!

You've got a tremendous number of skydives when compared to me. Have you ever seen an incident? Have you personally reported every one you've seen. I haven't and I've seen people break their lets already. I'm a little baby in this sport that plans on looking out for himself and others because I believe in personal accountability and responsibility. I have no problem skydiving in the confines of a BSR. I'm up to it because I have the guts to let go just like you have to have at every exit. I'm convinced that the people here who have been in the sport 24 more years than you have been actually have better PERSPECTIVE. Bring the BSR on. PLEASE. If you doubt the benefits of a BSR, just let some stupid ass like myself try to land and say "oh shit!!" as you're trying to pick up your canopy on the LZ. I just didn"t want any "personal freedoms" taken from me. So sorry.

I have almost no business addressing your stance on this topic as you've probably been around since skydiving started. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from and that what I'm saying is still respectful. From my point of view, I have valued EVERY bit of training and education offered to me. I think what the proponents are saying is that, for people like me, this would offer better education from the start and, therefore, it would be likely that fewer injuries and fatalities would occur to me over the years because my skydiving house would have been built on a more solid foundation. It's clear to me that there will continue to be people opposed to "the system" and all the willy-nilly rules and regulations of "the man" but my odds of surviving will be better for the BSR. As for the others, they'll be the ones to prove, in their own way, that a BSR won't stop every fatality or injury.

If you read through the posts of the guy mnealtx is replying to, it just doesn't seem to be all that "discussion" oriented. I would agree 100% with Sparky and when he said it sounds like first-year logic coming out. NOT that the guy isn't intelligent and cannot contribute anything, but that he is overzealous in applying everything he was taught, or self-taught, about philosophy to SKYDIVING. He should see that his adherence to the wisdom of logic set down by those before him (i.e. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Locke, Sartes, Camus, etc...) is ironic given that he will not listen to the people in the sport he chooses to participate in today. Perhaps he was taught to question everything and that's what he's slavishly doing.

nice work linking the definition of "renaissance" to dictionary.com and "time" and "experience" to the skeptic's dictionary.com in your post! Fortunately for myself and other new skydivers, the true teachers in this sport are putting just a little more effort into their arguments. I look at their words and I look at your words. I guess you'll understand if I'm a little "skeptical" of your stance as well! jason

Question: do you think if there were a BSR, that you would be able to demonstrate proficiency at 1.2? I'm not quite sure I could right away but I certainly plan to work my ass off to learn good canopy control skills.

YOU plural. I cannot make a presumption about you specifically because you offer no specific information. Remember, I asked about jump numbers so I could better understand from what category from which you're coming? Maybe it's ad hominem to ask but patterns exist and I listen up when people who've been around long enough see these patterns and speak about them. As a matter of fact, my opinion is that it's not up to the USPA, DZO's, S&TA's, or leadership to PROVE it to anyone. YOU plural (which will include me) may just be entering a time where it is up to us to PROVE we can do it before they decide to give you permission. There are a lot of individualistic aspects to this sport but BSR's got to be BSR's for a reason: Time and experience of the people who payed attention to what was happening around them and did something about it - not pontificating over the bruised egos of people who had to let go of a perceived entitlement. jason

Only for those that shouldn't be there in the first place. Demonstrate you can consistently fly your canopy then you can assume the risk. They aren't talking about that many jumps when you consider your potential amount of time in this sport. You may be at the skill level that would get you tested out anyway. Is it wise for those that COULD NOT get checked out on their canopy to compound the risks that already inherently exist? Good enough reason for me. For those that prove they are irresponsible in their decisions, yes.

And they are trying to change life for the better. This isn't meaning well. This is taking an action that may be unpopular to those most affected for the benefit of those most affected. Every counter point seems to revolve around philosophy and money. I quite like the philosophy of the leaders in this sport and I know they don't do it for the money. YOU get to have your fast-ass canopy once you demonstrate you can fly it.

It happened to me twice so far. Both times it was my monkey-like bony middle finger on my right hand. I reached over with my left hand (with my right hand all the way up to keep as even flight as possible) to pull slack and pulled my stupid finger out. I wondered if this was a common occurence. Now I plan to watch where I grab rather than just reaching by feel and unstowing the brakes. Both times I was in the saddle at approx 4,000' but it's something I would prefer to not have to deal with especially at lower altitudes.

For anyone still in opposition to this matter, please re-read the above post. It seems to me that the experienced proponents of this BSR already understand that YOU are an ace and that this rule is only meant for the people that can't fly a small canopy properly. If this passed it wouldn't really affect you because you're probably doing just fine anyway thank you very much. Hypothetical: What if the BSR passed and you went for sign off by jumping your hp canopy but didn't get it because [insert reason here]? Would you call that money-out-the-window or would you quietly start working on your cc skills? Would you give weight to the highly experienced coaches that acted as eye-witnesses to your [insert adjective here] landing? This BSR would put the power in their hands instead of yours. Scary for some, sure. And I think that is the root. jason

You and I are those guys. I'm not "qualified" to speak either. You and I are in the same boat, sort of. Tell me, would you rather have it handed to you by someone outside the community or would you rather recognize that people here 10+ years have seen people more qualified than us die because we didn't stop to think that more experienced people are just that. MORE EXPERIENCED. It doesn't mean giving up personal freedoms, taking a 2nd home equity loan, and being limited to finding a DZ 500 miles away that happens to have a 500 sq ft. canopy. They have suggested COUNTLESS times the ability to "test out." This would mean that you YES YOU, may be able to go up to your instructor, and ask to jump your CURRENT canopy (rental or otherwise) and PROVE you can land the thing in several ways. Wouldn't you feel more ACCOMPLISHED if you DEMONSTRATED your ability in the eyes of the MORE EXPERIENCED? Or do you think that they want no one to follow them and would prefer an extinct sport? They want us here and they want us to be here longer than our last bonehead decision would otherwise let us. You are not a bonehead by the way. But you must prove yourself to be outside of the bell-curve of the ones that got us to this debate in the first place. How about one or two more jumps on that 7,000 sq ft canopy first just to prove it. Get signed off on then you're off and running in NO TIME!! They may let us downsize to 5,000 sq ft in no time! PS - I'm sure no one here, including me, meant a lack of tact here in this thread. I think that includes you. I have to exercise tact day-in and day-out but this is not a sport in which I desire tact from the leadership. Give it to me straight. It's like being a recruit in WWII: Please help keep me alive with what you know. I'll do everything I can do to repay the favor. --edited to add that PS

Good point. My suggestion would have meant then: that to get your D-Liscese, as an example, you would HAVE to do the 270 and hit 5 out of 6 gates I can see how this would be undesirable as not EVERYONE wants to swoop. (YET). I agree and have made statements supporting some "test-out" after proving the ability. How could the two (w/l + HP landings) be reconciled to eliminate a split or cumbersome process? Are most of the opinion that a pure w/l BSR would take care of the premature HP attempts?

If I knew I had to have "x" jumps or completed some proficiency to swoop by "testing out", but didn't have that signed off on, I would expect and deserve to be grounded or talked to.

Derek, Is your thinking on this that the items would appear as "sign off" sections on the cards required for each liscense? So for A-Liscence, you would have your check-out dive, regaining stability, packing, etc.... AND one, some, or all of these items above? These would help prevent the "split" of canopy size and w/l from the liscense but still allow for "testing out" of those sections on the B, C, and D liscenses. Also, I thought I read somewhere that an actual proposal WAS sent to USPA and wanted to know if it is still holding or rejected or what? Have you actually sent something in to USPA yet or are the details to be determined out of everyone's input. I really do like the idea of putting some canopy coach sign off's on a card to go along with the Liscense. Do you see any value in including the HP landings in this as well - such as "a 270 hook turn at x' altitude" would assume a certain liscence or at least a "test out" of the skill on a specific liscense? thanks, jason

My first two tandem jumps were at a non-USPA sanctioned DZ. With that said, I don't know hwo this USPA BSR would affect non-USPA-sanctioned DZ's.

Hence the proficiency card. Not just jump numbers but more an evaluation. It's not foolproof. Any fool can still manage to kill themselves despite the best efforts of others to prevent it. I see people trying to solve a problem and I'm on board with that. I like the jump number idea with respect to the WL ratio but a liscence requirement and attention to the hook turns should be considered as well. Again, from someone who has never attempted a hp landing with a high WL ratio zactly. jason

I appreciate what you are saying. There are malicious people all around and the internet is no exception. I was only asking about your jump numbers so that I can better assess what group you're coming from. No personal information requested really. I just noticed that it's people in my category that seem to be disagreeing with the idea of a WL BSR (i.e. those that would be required to show the proficiency before a high WL). If you were 1,000 plus (or grandfathered as one of the proposals suggests) then this would put you in the minority. What is the motive for opposing a BSR? Those for the BSR are promoting saving lives. The only opposition seems to be money. Even then there is a "test-out" proposal floating out there as well. I wouldn't care if it costs more money to skydive. I have a will and therefore a way. This is awesome and a true testament to the community of this sport.