diablopilot

---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Buy it from the DZO. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

I was not speaking of any fatalities at Lodi. I was speaking of fatalities attributed to unintentional jumper contact with horizontal stabilizers on climbing jump runs. Never assume. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Sure about that? I know at least three people who hit tails while exiting a level properly configured aircraft. They we on the outside of stalled aircraft. Who bears the responsibility for that one? Or how about the students I've seen that had a deployment that caused them to find the tail? It's all about minimizing risk. Maybe I should preface everything by saying it's my opinion, but then no one else has. I don't believe that is a concern of the USPA. It certainly isn't within the purpose of the USPA as spelled out in the Constitution. As to your alternate wording, It works, but it doesn't have the emphasis of the original which I support. I support it because it tells jumpers who otherwise may feel pressured to accept the status quo that there is an alternative and it is well within their power to demand it or choose to jump elsewhere. How many times have we seen a DZ where the DZO has said "my way or the highway" (thanks Jan) and put dollars ahead of safety and pressured jumpers who have not been around long enough to form their own opinions. Hell if the DZO does it with his/her staff, next thing you know, anything they say, goes, and before long you have a whole new culture of jumper who SUPPORTS things like climbing exits in exchange for cheap jumps. What's next? I'll make my stand here. Paul, I still don't have a reason that puts safety over dollars to support the increased risk of climbing exits. Darn it. I had said I was out. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

It's the Presidential Seal. And the comments are in line with about 10-20% of AFF first jump CAT "A" skydives from my experience. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Sorry you feel that way. I think you completely misunderstand my attitude. As for Kool-Aid, I prefer Cherry. I assure you, my thoughts are my own, safety to me is paramount to any other concerns in this matter. It just so happens my thoughts on how to keep this situation safe are in line with USPA's thinking. I'll refer everyone in this thread to the GovManual now: From Sec 1-1 Constitution I don't see a word about protecting a DZ's liability, or increasing a DZ's profits. It is fact that providing a level jumprun with use for flaps will decrease the chance of a jumper striking the tail. It is also true that a low or diving exit will decrease the chance of a jumper striking the tail. No one in this thread has been willing to offer a reason to increase the level of risk to the jumpers remaining in the airplane, the pilot, the jumper exiting, and persons and property on the ground by making a climbing pass. I'll take any one good reason that does not put dollars over safety under consideration. Jan: Again my thoughts are my own, and I am sorry you feel that way, but as an S&TA, pilot, and instructor who is often very far from the door to be making an emergency exit with a student I'll continue to insist on jumpruns being level, with flaps in many aircraft, and a power reduction. Paul: Every student of mine has received instruction on what to look for and how to safely exit an aircraft. But what if one of them gets excited or preoccupied, and forgets? Well if the aircraft is level, we have another margin of error, don't we. And what of those still in the aircraft? Should their margin of safety be reduced? What's this all about? Do you really think a climbing exit is as safe as a level exit? Or is this about you thinking the USPA is somehow increasing your liability? Reality check: If you (and your DZO) want to do climbing exits all day long, the USPA hasn't told you you can't. And if you do them safely, well then there is no problem is there? Robin: Gee thanks for the progress report. I live to please your notions of what I should "grow into". Save it. How many fatalities have we seen from hot fueling, or loading while spinning props? Now how many have wee seen from collisions with the tails of airplanes? And of those how many we climbing aircraft? Need me to go get those numbers for you? BTW, Paul, Jan, Robin, are any of you a current instructor dealing with the current wave of students, in this modern age of skydiving, tandem mills, youtube, and media? Then I'm wondering who you are all talking about when you say "WE" are doing a bad job of training people. I don't believe you fully understand the challenges. The majority of tail strikes have been from exiting while the aircraft was still configured for, and in a climb. We rarely see tail strikes from level jumpruns, using flaps, and power reductions, and those that we have seen are extraordinary circumstances i.e. wingsuits. Q.E.D. Margins of safety can be improved by providing a level jumprun with a power reduction and flaps dependent on aircraft type. To anyone interested: I couldn't care less about whether people think I'm being "political", or have a "vendetta". My focus has been, is, and will continue to be safety ahead of all else. My thoughts are my own, my reasons are valid, and based on examining history, and applying simple corrective actions. I've about had it with this thread and topic. It seems some people will not be swayed by the facts, but would rather believe in their own reality. Some people have even created a false reality of their own about me. Fine. I hope they have puppies and candy in your worlds too. My purpose is to spread the ideas of safety to skydivers, and hopefully some of them reading this are getting it. I'm out. Edit: This whole argument is a joke. And all it will serve to do in the long run is paralyze an already schizophrenic BOD into less action then before. So many complain about the USPA doing nothing, well let me tell you how it is having been to the last 3 years worth of meetings. There is a very hard working staff that believes in the USPA and it's members, and providing service to those members consistent with the guidelines laid out in the original Constitution (see above). They are more than likely the ones who came up with this advertisement. They are directed in their overall actions and goals by the BOD, a group of people who for better or worse have won a popularity contest among no more than 10% of the USPA membership. Some are very representative of the members in their regions, some represent only those elements that voted for them, and all have personal motives that drive them. Many have conflicts or perceived conflicts in those motives, i.e. DZO's, make their living from industry, millitary, etc. Right or wrong, what this seems to do is often provoke a major level of inaction to issues that need action, because of concerns of liability, profitability, and popularity. After all, how is one going to be elected if one puts safety over popularity. Now I'm really out. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

3 fatalities in less than 5 years. Not to mention injuries, aircraft damage, and endangering a plane load of jumpers. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

And the USPA has decided that it is an unsafe practice. If you don't like it, vote with your feet, and wallet. No one says you HAVE to be a member. I applaud the USPA for putting the safety of it's members ahead of a dollar. See my above point. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

You mean like professional skydiving entertainment companies that go all around the country taking work away from the locals? Well played ma'am. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Maybe a person doesn't want to meet one of the requirements (i.e. night jumps). It still should not invalidate the accomplishment of 12 hours of freefall, IMO. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Agree with your assessment. Will see if I can put in a word of support at the next BOD meeting, and at least see if I can get an understanding of why it is so. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

To me more accurate I have a problem with Mr. Dause and the way he operates. I support most jumpers at the Parachute Center, as they are USPA members and that's what I'm supposed to do as an S&TA. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Skr, the will exist, in those of us that care about the history of where we came from..... ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

I'd say less than 1.5 seconds to being more useful than that, but you've got a point. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

The way the current laws in California read, it's the only option these guys have so they are exercising it. They by law are permitted to have the firearm holstered unloaded, and have a loaded magazine in plain view as well. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Your poll is flawed. The USPA has not made any rule about climbing exits, nor have they made rules about how a DZO must operate his aircraft that are above and beyond those of the FARs. What they have done is state their position on climbing exits, and that position says they have a higher level of risk. Kinda like the USPA has said sub 100 sq foot canopies have a higher level of risk. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

The USPA has said pulling below 2,000 AGL is unsafe, but it's an economic way for people to get more skydive. Heck, DZO's could climb less, and therefor increase profits, and provide more slots and cheaper jumps for their customers. People could pull "safe enough" at 1,000 if they knew how to do it. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Where do you get that? From Section 1-1 of the USPA Governance manual. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-free-parking29-2010jan29,0,211620.story?track=rss ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

It is a jumpers responsibility to jump safely and DZ's responsibility to provide safe aircraft and operate them in a safe manner. It is NOT safe to offer climbing passes with no cut and no flaps ESPECIALLY in low tailed aircraft, i.e. King Air, Beech 99, PAC750, Caravan. IT has not, now will ever be, and the USPA has been on board with that idea for MANY years. Long time aircraft operators agree as well, including one of the most notable King Air operators in skydiving, Mike Mullins. One only needs to look at the significant number of fatalities and incidents cause through no cut climbing exits to see it's a bad idea. Hell, even instructors at the dropzone being discussed know it's foolish and have said as much. It's not just about the jumper who leaves in a climbing exit's safety, but that of everyone else on the aircraft being put at risk. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

I know of an AFF student who had the left shoulder go on level 1. She deployed, unstowed one toggle and held it in her teeth, unstowed the other and then flew with both in one hand. An exceptional student for sure, but doable for most of us IF you keep you wits about you and be prepared to PLF. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

If you'd look to more than one report of the incident, other than a politically slanted one, you'd see that not only was law enforcement supportive and helpful to the event, but that many of the general public was both supportive, and many were educated about the laws. With this state cutting law enforcement positions like it's going out of style, and the SCOUS stating that LE is not bound to protect citizens, one might expect that people are concerned about personal protection. But "gun nuts" are "bad men" and children should never have to see a gun possessed by someone who might teach them responsibility with firearms, but rather save that for movies, and games. Yeah, that's where they belong. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Gun freaks. Nice. They are people who consider their second amendment rights to be valuable enough to exercise them to the extent that this state (California) has corrupted them. Their statement, and mission is one that simply points out that guns and gun owners are not evil, should not be feared, and they try to educate a mass made ignorant by assumption and media, as to the actual state of law. Based on the legal risk they take from an ignorant public, and more importantly ignorant law enforcement, I have to applaud them though I won't join them. Of course they probably are not worried about the handful of ignorant fucksticks that think just because the had a secured unloaded firearm in the presence of a child that they are "bad men". Edit: Oh and both companies need to check the wording of their policies to make sure they conform with CA state law. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Since you're biased and irrational, I really don't see the need to reply to YOU, however for those that may be reading this, I am mixed bag about the decision. In on respect I see it as support for the idea that skydivers should take personal responsibility for their actions. On the other hand there are now people that still honestly believe a no cut climbing exit in a low tail aircraft is acceptable. Ed had it right when he said skydivers need to know what they are getting into, the problem with that lies in a DZ that has such a weak safety culture and has a handful of gung ho "cool kids" who seem to defy the rules as an example for the the new wave of skydivers to follow. Who can expect someone with 100 jumps to be interested in learning about aircraft safety when no one tells them it's important? Simply telling someone "don't do that" is not effective. Creating someone who is looking for all the opportunities that might kill them is much more difficult, but also much more rewarding. Oh. Wait. You probably were not listening just then. Too busy doing a "flip" with your tandem "punter". ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

The pilot in this case was determined NOT to be careless, reckless, or against industry standards by a jury of his peers, in accordance with the legal process of the US. Please do not attempt to catagorize him as otherwise. I disagree. A jury of his peers would have been jumpers, pilots, and others who all have significant experience in the sport of skydiving as it relates to safety and aircraft operation. If the most widely recognized skydiving organization in the world (USPA) is on record as saying allowing exits without a cut is a bad idea, then one might just assume they know something. The judgment did not simply say the pilot's actions were the safest, but rather that skydiving was dangerous and they had no ability to say otherwise. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.