tdog

I disagree... In the ethics I am pointing out - jumper and general public safety is probably the number one goal, followed by our ability to continue to skydive. I will gladly bust an FAR in a split second decsion for the purpose of safety, if need be. If I intentionally and optionally bust an FAR, I need to understand and mitigate the risks and do it in a calculated way. But, this is branching out away from the sub-section of this ethical mindset I have that I tried to address in this post. I think I set a good example that safety first with my students and explain that the USPA cannot do anything except make recommendations that we must and should follow at group member DZs, whereas the government sets laws we must follow anywhere we go. Out of context, my comment sounds reckless. If you meet me in person, you will see that I am more conservative than a lot of people and respect the USPA's BSRs, especially in front of students when I am working. Also, in front of students I never even discuss breaking the rules until I know them well and can have a discussion about the bigger picture ethics and politics in our sport. By then, they are probably not students but friends, and I expect them to make their own decisions.

Because ethics and laws in a self-regulating society are not the same thing. Ethically I believe I have a responsibility to insure you, and others continue to skydive with the least government regulation, in perpetuity. To do that, I need to follow certain procedures, including not PUBLICALLY ADVERTISING laws being broken. My first post was not about money, it is about busting laws publicly. In the article in a related sport where laws are sometimes broken: http://www.basejumper.com/Articles/Philosophy/Ethical_Philosophy_696.html It says very clearly what I am trying to say: The story that comes to mind... The famous "Tar and Feather". For those who don't know - here is the short version of the urban legend... A community of BASE jumpers jump a crane often. The crane operator leaves crane unlocked in exchange for beer. A single BASE jumper jumps it without seeking assistance from the community, and video tapes his jump, and sends it to the TV stations. The site is burned and the crane operator loses his job. The BASE community finds the jumper, ties him up (with a free hand so he can undo himself after they leave) and cover him in tar and feathers, and while doing so, say, "this is for getting the guy fired." The BASE jumpers were not as worried about THEIR ability to jump, but getting revenge for the CRANE OPERATOR who lost his job... When you publicly advertise FARs being broken, you are starting to enter the area where pilots lose jobs, FAA guys get egg on their face to their superiors, and skydiving in general can get burned... So my point remains: "If you are going to bust a law - do so in a way that is ethical to the community and does not endanger my ability to continue to jump." Not about money. Not about publicity. About ethics...

Ever bust a cloud? Jump with an out of date reserve? Did I do it for money? Did I publish it in movies? Did I ask the FAA before hand and do it even when they told me it was a bad idea?

I truly respect people that push the limits, innovate, challenge the sport, break the rules of gravity - but do it for the sport, or do it for themselves, privately or shared within our community. I also respect people who get paid to skydive in airshows, events, or publicity stunts. Heck, I was paid quite well for a commercial I did too. That is where we disagree and I fundamentally differ from your views. This sounds like the same greedy attitude than caused Enron to crash - a CEO who was willing to totally disregard any and all rules for a paycheck. CEOs of companies, from Martha Stewart to Joseph Nacchio have gone to jail because their self centered profit motive has endangered other's people ability to live their financial or personal lives they hoped for. If you truly believe, and live by your words: Then I fundamentally have little respect for your attitude, because if enough people adopted your attitude, the FAA would have to push down more regulation and enforcement on me, and your actions would directly effect my life. A rouge individual like you likely will do me no harm. A community of people with your attitude will. I know you don't exist for my respect, and you are probably going to tell me to shove off. Oh well. I just hope the future of skydiving and BASE jumping is not ruined by a profit motive, and based upon the many PMs I have received from some of the most well known skydivers in our community, I am not alone. Again, my argument is not about getting paid. My argument is about publicly showing everyone a blatant disregard for the few government (not USPA or CSPA) regulations that do exist - for the sake of a paycheck.

Upset? Well, I am just expressing my view point on this thread. I am not upset. I have not lost sleep over it. It is actually very inconsequential to me in the big picture, even though I have strong opinions I have shared here. Upset about the fatality in MOAB, as I assume that is what you are referencing? Yes, I am very "upset" by it. I watched the skydiver leave the plane (although I had nothing to do with his jump or his choice to jump the gear he did). I met him before the jump, and, a friend was a very close friend of the deceased. I have been at the DZ for six fatal incidents, and there are an additional two people who died in a plane crash hours after I talked to them about the plane that they were flying, that I met because I was involved in an airshow with skydiving. That makes 8 faces to remember. Each one "hit me" to a different extent. I have lost sleep, and found a tear in my restless eyes over three, and the MOAB one is one of them. My personal pain is nothing compared to what my friend who knew the skydiver well, must be going thru. No, this issue does not upset me like seeing someone die and know my friends grieve. But in the end of the day - no FAA rules were broken in MOAB by the skydiver who made the decisions he did. Sure, the USPA has some recommendations that were broken, but those are not binding laws. Perhaps it makes our sport look bad, but in the end of the day, the FAA won't have egg on their face for not enforcing or turning a blind eye to a regulation. Yes, I agree - there are bigger fish to fry in skydiving, such as landing incidents due to poorly trained canopy pilots or hot shot swoopers. I watched a friend suffer injuries that would eventually turn fatal on a swoop gone bad. That makes me cry at night... But this thread I started not to discuss what makes me upset emotionally, but what I believe is the selfish acts of others that endanger my freedoms. If you want to discuss the MOAB fatality, there is a thread about it, but I am done discussing it here - as no FAA regulations were broken in that incident.

I have maybe 80 phantom jumps, and a few prodigy.... I had fun with the ghost the first time I flew it. Did not seem to be that challenging to fly somewhat dirty in a flock - but I have not learned yet how to punch it like I can on my Phantom with only 4 demo jumps... At the end of the flock I tried to punch it, and it felt like a Ford LTD, because I did not know yet how to "feather the clutch" -- if we are keeping the car analogies going. I can feel it has the power, just have to dial it in. Note - unlike what someone else said, the extra fabric on the wings DID get in the way of my 1st pull - and another experienced wingsuit pilot experienced the same. Not quite like the V2, but enough that you feel the fabric as you put your hand on the hacky... Be completely comfortable with the possibility it will take more than one try to get the hacky in your hand until you figure out the suit.

When I ordered the first group of phantoms for the old crew (like RJMoney who moved on to less famous places) - I took a photo of the four suits lined up on the floor... It was impressive. Can't wait until I see seven lined up. In the sky is better.

Bill, I read up on your chuteless jump a few years ago and was aware of it when I posted this thread. I respect the skills, training, planning and guts it takes to do such a jump. When I read about it, I got the sense you did it for the personal challenge, and you were not sponsored or doing it for a movie - but instead - for yourself. My comments are based on the current landscape, and current stunts, and some of the things I see people doing while being sponsored by some of the beverage and other companies that focus their entire brand on being "extreme". That is not me. I have made money on this sport, and if anyone tells me I am an ass for doing so, I will tell them I disagree. For an example, I worked for a month on a national TV commercial, and I was paid very well by skydiving standards for the time I invested. I have no problems with people making money. I have no problems with people doing crazy daring stuff for their own personal gratification or the personal challenge. But when the most basic fundamental laws/regulations are ignored - for the sake of a beverage company sponsorship or movie sales to a wuffo audience - I believe it is a tremendously selfish act for one person, or one business's financial gain. Without looking at all the rules (not USPA/CSPA recommendations - but the binding government rules) - how many rules did you break for these stunts? Long risers, opening low, etc... These things are not specifically regulated like the requirement to have a two parachute TSO harness/container system is regulated. If that is directed towards me, since I started this thread - then my response is: "I have a life. It is a passion towards skydiving, jumping, parachuting, jumping off of shit, and in general sharing the sky with the birds. Please don't do anything that hinders my ability to live my life, including publicly broadcasting and selling video of the most fundamental rules being ignored. In exchange, I promise, when I bend the rules to the point I probably snapped them in half, and I will, it will be kept quiet, so I don't hinder your ability to have a life you choose."

I have mixed emotions, but I almost think this makes me even more passionate towards my argument: "If you are going to break the rules, do it quietly and for your own personal satisfaction, not financial gain." In this case they went as far as to vilolate a direct request by the FAA. If something went "awkward", per your terminology - the FAA would get even greater pressure to be more firm with their enforcement of the rules if it was found out that a direct request/suggestion was ignored. My opinion only.... Yours may be different.

Wow. So, what is 90 days? One minute a day touching skydiving gear? Or an 8 hour day packing? Seems hard to judge. Also, I know a few very good riggers who have day jobs and work on gear a few days a month. It seems that the majority of riggers are skydivers who rig here and there. Few call it their full time gig. So, it looks like a lot of people are not getting the 90 days. So the "or" number 2 is what saves them, huh?

Are you mixing up PACKING ONE RIG in the last 90 days, or working 90 days out of 365 in the industry??? I think it is the first, but you think it is the second. Please find your source and quote it, as this is a new one to me...

This might be a first... Everyone take note of the date and time.

Well, the FAA sees anyone leaving a plane intetionally as "parachuting operations". He was not wearing a bedsheet, harness, container, or reserve. The parts the FAA do care about were left on the ground. My point exactly. Your arguments about the USPA and regulations and bed sheets have nothing to do with my post... I said one of the few and most basic FAA regulations was broken... If USPA rules were broken, I would not care, because they can't do anything other than take my ratings... I care about the FAA because they can regulate when I can jump from a plane, and I don't want anyone else taking that right away from me for a financially motivated publicity stunt. That is selfish.

I am a man. I don't put on youtube stuff that puts liability on my friends, or you. I have stuff I could publish, but I don't. If every (or most, or some) of the Is and Ts were dotted and crossed I would not bitch. Maybe others would, but not me. I just get upset when people try to hurt my ability to continue to jump by doing selfish acts - such as publishing videos of rules being broken. I never said don't break the rules - I just said, if you do, don't do it for personal or financial gain in a publicity stunt. P.S. I hate rules and waivers. I don't want more, I want less. The key is to not brag about breaking the few that currently exist.

Very good point. I have to go to work so I am out of time to research, but I see that Puerto Rico (which typically falls under US federal laws as a part of the USA) is listed in the regulations here and there. Here is an example:

Was it legal? If so - then I agree - do it. I think I even said that in my first post. My comment is that I don't think it was, just speculation, based upon how hard it would be to get the regulations waived for lack of TSOed equipment. (Since when did rock climbing harnesses carry TSO stamps?) AND - this post is not just about this stunt - but illigal stunts in general. When legal - do it. Publish it. Sell it. Embrace it. When illegal - if you do it - keep it to yourself or your close friends. If this stunt was 100% legit, all paperwork waiving the need for a TSOed parachute was signed, sealed, and delivered - then I apologize for assuming this one was bandit.

I read the thread, saw the photos, about a skydiver's recent leap from an aircraft without a parachute. The thread does not indicate if the basic regulation that a skydiver has to have a main and reserve in a TSO container, was waived for the stunt/film/beverage company publicity. Here is my little soap box about publicity stunts. I will not buy the movie or support the beverage company if they are behind this. We have a very delicate sport where regulations are always being pushed down from the government, while we beg for more freedom and less regulations. Showing the FAA in high definition that we don't follow the most basic regulations published, we are inviting them to regulate our sport more, or deny the simple requests DZOs might make the next time they are flying a demo load or needing a modification to be approved. It is not far fetched for the water cooler talk at the FAA offices to go something like this: "Did you see that stunt where that guy jumped without a parachute on that commercial." "Yes, I did. Those guys are idiots, and the local DZ just asked for a waiver for their operations. I don't know if I should give it to them, if they pull a similar stunt, my name is going to be trashed. I think we need to go by the book 100% so Washington does not throw us under the bus. Actually, I will go up to that DZ tomorrow and do a full inspection. How about you go to the other one." There have been "stunts" in the past that were more like magic - a hidden rig - a plan B - a hidden safety wire, etc. This stunt appears to be highly risky to our sport in that there was no plan B. 1) If he went in, the fall out would have been huge. 2) When the FAA inspectors see this, they are going to have video proof that a skydiver, a pilot, and an airport pissed in their face and broke the few regulations in our sport, for the sake of a publicity stunt. If you are going to skydive from an aircraft from 400 feet with your BASE rig - don't publish it. If you are going to skydive without a parachute - don't publish it. If you are going to skydive from an aircraft, land on a building, then BASE off the building with your reserve - don't publish it. I don't care if you do stunts for your own personal gratification, I have a rebellious side too and these jumps can be fun and rewarding, I just kindly ask that you don't sell out our sport for your, or a beverage's gain. Note - if the stunt was done with proper waivers/paperwork, then I say go for it, go all the way, put it on the side of every bottle of sport's beverage, and show it in IMAX on the next movie - whatever! Just keep the intentional law/regulation breaking behind closed doors. If you think I am right, don't buy this movie, and if a beverage company was behind this, buy the competitor's product. If you think I am wrong, flame me here, and buy the beverage, and watch the regulations be pushed down on us when the stunts get bigger and something goes wrong.

My advice from experience: 1) Declare what is in the bag before it goes thru the Xray. "Sir, I just wanted you to know there is a skydiving parachute in this duffel bag." This is because they have to have the supervisor do the hand inspection, so they can call them over before they discover what it is themselves. (I tried not saying anything once, and the guy actually pressed the "get more people here" button thinking the wires looked too much like a bomb. When he figured it out, he asked me, "is this a parachute?" I said "yes". He said, "Thank god, I seriously thought it was, a you know, 'poof'. All those wires..." The sweat on his forehead, and the sudden crowd of police around me, made me believe him). 2) If the main is unpacked inside the duffel, it can make the screeners feel more comfortable because they feel less is hidden inside. By the time they get thru a few square feet of fabric with their wand, they dig less. 3) I never have gotten defensive or told the person what to do. Never had to give them the USPA letter or Cypres card (although I have them). Hence, they always are good to me. Sometimes we have some small talk about the boogie I am going to, etc. If they small talk, I small talk back. 4) When they open the duffel I always offer, "Would you like me to pull it out and show it to you?" I do this because I see the guys intimidated by the handles afraid that they will "set it off". I typically say, "just don't pull on this handle", but show the rig can be handled like a rig, not a box of china. When they feel they can handle it and know what not to touch, typically they are more comfortable. Often though they just leave it in the duffel and do their swabs.

Of course, one of the first symptoms of hypoxia is a false belief that everything is fine! And I don't see the significance of being "unorganized". Does being unorganized somehow reduce your oxygen demand? Ok, I will bite... Maybe the cannula is better? I have asked before and I will ask again - what proof is there that O2 delivery is going to be better with a cannula than an identical hose, with identical flow, held directly in front of your nose or mouth with deliberate breathing from the hose? When I said "unorganized" - I was referring to the fact that the jumps had no single load organizer, no single training briefing, and no guarantee of compatibility of cannula hoses brought in gear bags with the hoses installed on the plane (size/couplers/male vs female ends, etc) I still believe the system used is KISS and BETTER for "unorganized jumps" from "intermediate altitude", hence does not jeopardize the jumpers... I seek data that I am wrong, that a cannula can deliver O2 more effectively than a hose a centimeter away from your mouth or nose, or stuffed inside a closed full face helmet. When you give me data that shows the ROI is worth it in terms of equipment, training, cost, risk of system failure with a more complicated system, etc - then I will support the cannula system. Until then, you can twist my words and quote just portions of my posts, making it sound like I am jeopardizing jumpers, when in fact, my posts have been trying to express why I think a raw hose is better for the situation. Go up a few posts and you will see I laid out a complete bulleted list of why I support the system as being better.

This is to you and Bill Von, since his comment was that a high altitude jump is not a normal jump. I was on the load that caused the investigation. (I believe, based upon the hints in this thread) If you want to get more details or want to discuss the incident - look at the MOAB incident thread(s)... There was a wingsuit fatality. "High Altitude" is relative. A BASE jumper thinks 1000 feet is high. I think 24,000 MSL is high. My friend was in the army and his special forces unit was doing "specialty high altitude training" from 16,000 MSL, with an exit altitude lower than the neighboring sport DZ's average exit. So - I looked it up. The SIM defines the jump we did as "intermediate altitude". It would take another 2,500 feet to make it a "high altitude" jump (20,000 ft) It was a boogie. The field elevation was 4450'. My neptune shows exits all weekend at 12,500-13,000 AGL. The calculated exit hence was 17,500 ASL. o2 is required at 15,000 AGL per the rule book. I saw the o2 system being turned on at 9,000 AGL, or 13,500 ASL. The pilots had cannulas, and I remember seeing a mask for one of the pilots over the weekend, but I don't remember which jump(s)/aircraft(s). The skydivers each had their own tube hanging from a pipe on the ceiling that was long enough to use either sitting or standing. The system was operational and well maintained in that it delivered o2 to us reliably. I saw the system had a valve and flow regulator and when the pilot turned on the system he dialed in the airflow while watching the flow meter. The time we were exposed to 15,000 ASL + altitudes on the jump (and every jump except one where a go around was necessary) was "normal", meaning a typical aircraft climb to jump run followed by an immediate jump. Less than 5 minutes. None of the longer jump runs and higher altitude exposure periods associated with formation aircraft loads or military loads where the aircraft has to "dial in" the jump run timing/location. About 50% of the skydivers picked up the tubes and held the o2 in their face. The others knew it was available but opted not to. So - to recap my views: If this was a special invite of high altitude formation jumpers, or a "high altitude jump" as defined by the SIM as 20,000 feet - I can see cannulas being practical and good investments for all. However, at a boogie with a group of "unorganized" skydivers, going to "intermediate altitude" as defined by the SIM, where a tube can effectively be held to your mouth/nose for the 2 or 3 minutes when o2 is required - I believe the system the aircraft had installed was effective and appropriate - without cannulas.

He he he - this thread has gone full circle. I suggested in an early post that the tube fits nicely in the little holes on the front of the helmet.

It was sarcasm. I called us civilians idiots too. Anyone who jumps out of planes for the fun of it is an idiot - and thus all my good and best friends are idiots, and I am proud of it. You have defended the technology - which I fundamentally agree would work if every person who came to the boogie was told to buy their own cannula or was included as part of the entrance fee (remember, this all started because of a boogie fatality)... But - you have NOT answered why a cannula is BETTER than using the hold-the-tube-to-whatever-hole you are breathing in for the 3-5 minutes where o2 is required technique... The naked ended tube you hold up to your face: 1) Is fool proof - no hardware interface required by the jumper. 2) Is cheap - no hardware required by the jumper. 3) Is easy to use - just grab it and hold to your mouth or nose. 4) Is safe - nothing to snag or disconnect on exit 5) Is allergy/sinus clog friendly - if your nose is clogged up, hold to your mouth 6) Is sanitary - by putting it just in front of your nose or mouth, no touch... 7) Is flexible - if the plane does a go around, you can quickly grab a hose and hold it to your nose in less than a second. 8) Is compatible - just attach a cannula if that is what you choose to use. 9) Is familiar - skydivers who have never used o2 before can comfortably use the system without learning how to make the hose fit under their helmet, how to connect or disconnect, etc. And - remember, the fatality was a wingsuit pilot 10) Is wingsuit friendly - no additional post-wing-zip up disconnect, manipulation, just drop the hose and go Every part of the cannula makes this system MORE complex, MORE gear dependant, LESS reliable. I will admit, a pilot flying a plane who needs to hands available at all times needs a cannula. Please - if you think there is a key advantage to a cannula, educate me. Back at 'cha - if you can figure out how to hold a tube to your nose for 3 minutes it's real unlikely you will survive skydiving for any significant amount of time... I fully support the USPA protecting the DZOs with the FAA, to support any method of o2 delivery the skydiver opts to use, from a raw hose to a cannula.

But does the anti-lame-ass purchase and maintenance of a cannula solve any problem other than satisfying red tape of government bureaucracy? I can't think of a single time I have been on a plane where we had the hoses and we were not able to get the O2 delivered in a satisfactory way. We are not talking high altitude jumps, just ones a few thousand feet above the required altitude. If we were gonna be on a plane for hours - that is one thing - as no one wants to hold the hose up to their mouth. On a quick climb to altitude, where the system is needed for the last few thousand feet - seems like a lot of hardware with no return on investment... Correct me if I am wrong. P.S. at the event that caused this crack-down of policy, use of the o2 was already at about 50%, the other 50% left the hoses dangling... Adding additional hardware will reduce this even more, unless there is a mandate on the DZ/Plane...

Were they cannulas issued to the person - permanently, they took in freefall... Or did they take them out at the last second and put on their helmet? Or how? Full face, open face? Germs from person to person with something up their nose? I know this is entering the lame-ass excuse part, but it is not likely that skydivers are going to buy and maintain their own cannula for a higher-altitude boogie when the simpler solution of a tube that you can put near your mouth/nose to suck in the O2 works just as well. The point I was trying to make, if you want users to use it, make it simple, stupid, and idiot proof... (Yes, the Air Force folks you are talking about are special kinds of idiots, better than us civilian idiots, and are issued all their gear for free and have dedicated planes they always jump out of.) But - you are right, there is a way....

A BASE jumper at Twin Falls hit the river with a PC in tow. He hit at pretty much full speed, from a 480 foot fall. He was wearing some body armor, and lived. My friend's grandmother died a few weeks ago from hitting her head in the kitchen. Luck and how you hit and what you hit, will change the outcome... 480 feet = lived 0 feet = died That being said - you are asking a serious question that you should consider a lot about... The number one way to die in skydiving these days is under a perfectly good canopy with user error. Flaring too high is 100% survivable if you know exactly what to do. If you do the wrong thing, you will dive your canopy into the ground. So you know what to ask your mentors about, ask about "angle of attack", and why by flaring the pendulum effect increases angle of attack, increasing lift, reducing speed - and - why by going back to full flight - the opposite occurs. As you say you have identified a common beginners mistake that is completely survivable with skill.