Zenister

agreed, all the numbers i've seen (and none are really detailed enough to draw real conclusions from) show that skydiving as a whole has become much safer given the number of participants. NOTHING indicates that we are losing skydivers at such alarming rates that Big Brother needs to step in and "save us from ourselves" yes any single death is tragic..not being able to live at all because of excessive regulation to save those who chose to walk the edge of the envelope in the first place is FAR worse than any fatalitiy. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

something always CAN be done, the question is wither something SHOULD or not. in any activity there are elements of risk, skydiving is on the edge as the consequences of your actions can result in death yes! it matters if you have the same ratio per number of participants/activity one death or even ten is tragic..however is the number of deaths OVERALL significant enough that someone else needs to step in and say "NO YOU CANT DO THAT IT MIGHT BE DANGEROUS!"??? as i said before there are lots of things you can do to reduce the number of fatalities from skydiving. The first would be just stop jumping out of planes. problem solved. what i am saying is that the current numbers really dont support the epidemic outrage that to many are implying..Big Brother does not need to step in to save anyone from participating in an activity they KNEW COULD KILL them before they started in the first place. If dying really concerns you watch what you eat & stay inside your home, your more likely to live a long and dull existence that way. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

I'm still waiting for numbers that show "the sky is falling!!" as posts like this (and others) that call for immediate regulation to save us from ourselves is required at all. from everything i've seen the fatalities ratio / number of jumps made per year world wide is pretty insignificant. not to imply that any single life is insignificant, just pointing out that we arent about to run out of skydivers anytime soon at the current rates, and therefore more restrictive regulation isnt always the best answer to such concerns. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

wow thats not a song you hear many places.. good choice though. just a few more 'obscure' songs.. Spinner -Twinemen Once in a lifetime -Wolfsheim Difficult to Cure -Rainbow Super Bad -James Brown ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

as a student i was only taught to pro-pack..ive seen people flat pack, but wouldnt really know where to start.. going to have to learn a version of it for BASE though.. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

well said..why would i look to mans written words for inspiration and enlightenment when creation is all around? if its kept civil and unobtrousive. i dont think anyone would really mind..intentionally distract me from my personal experience of divinity thru freefall and i'll certainly be annoyed.. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

so what was the increase in the percentage of accidents for of jumpers with under 500 jumps? how about that statistic as a ratio of total jumps made by a "inexperienced" jumpers? i dont think the numbers you are throwing around add up the conclusion you assume it does. You need to add some more detail to your numbers before you draw such broad lines total number of jumps per year? by each experience level? currency at present wingloading for each incident? number of jumps on specific canopy types? if more jumps were made by jumpers with under 500 jumps in any single year you certainly would expect there to be more accidents than in a year with fewer jumps as with your blanket regulation simple numbers dont paint a very complete picture. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

based on all the comments about AFI's without the ability to land themselves and/or teach anyone else it doesnt look like education has even been tried at a real level, either that or people are just letting an amazing number of unqualified jumpers fly canopies they arent ready for... but go ahead and lobby for regulation. mandating a simple scale to canopy size restriction wont do much more than push the average number of jumps for each accident victim a bit higher since your not actually requiring them to LEARN how to fly any particular wing your just having them land under a parachute a few extra times. and then next time someone goes in with 1000 jumps under a canopy they couldnt fly you can salve your conscience by saying "well he was within regulations" i guess if it happens often enough remember one death is too many you can then lobby to raise the limits so NOONE is allowed jumping anything loaded more than 1.0 i'm sure accidents will go down then too. :rollseyes:[sarcasm] as they would if we simply stopped skydiving too why dont we just outlaw that and solve the whole issue? if noone is jumping out of planes no one will die under canopy[/sarcasm] going to lobby for scales next to boarding ramps to verify wingloadings? scan your license as you line up send the info to the master database at the USPA HQ for to be crossrefrenced to thier constantly updated manifest loads records to ensure the jumper meets the requirements? after all that burrito you had at lunch my put you over 1.4 today.. why not? you dont seem to trust the DZO's, ST&As, coaches and instructors well enough to give them the ability to decide if the jumpers under their supervision can fly their canopies, and would rather put that responsibility at a board level that never actually sees any jumpers?? why not make the people 'on the ground' responsible for verifing that the jumpers they train actually demonstrate the ability to land the parachutes they are flying?? a simple skills evaluation irreguardless of jump numbers would be far more effective and perhaps even save a few of you 2000 jump wonders from dying under wings your ability isnt up to yet sorry i forget in our society overreaching regulation is always the answer, once you have a law against it problems disappear. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

I wanna play!! Hey tall women have long legs, long legs are good

well Lew if you would allow us onto the island of the amazons maybe we wouldnt get so attached to the little ones first. come on hook a brotha up! ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

You might want to try hooking up with a group of "urban explorers." Any moderately large city has them. It's a fun way to see your city (and not just rooftops) from a new perspective. At the same time you'll learn how to be places you aren't supposed to without getting caught. And, in my limited experience (one bust and talking to others), actual arrests are rare if you aren't doing anything more illegal than trespassing I did lots of rappels this way..being unadvasarial and generally staying low key and under the radar made it possible to do lots of drops off things with only a "uh you cant really be here" when we did get 'caught' usually it was more of a gear interest and a "i'd love to try that but..." conversation ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

bumpy candidates who opt to take the evaluation nude receive instruction at no charge ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

anything by James Brown..particularly "SuperBad" ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

out the window into the sun roof pass thru the back window to the front drivers side.. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

will you offer certified licenses? ie Atmosphere Appendages? (tm) ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

i LOVE hand tracking.. was doing it all the way back from Baker this weekend.. Hand down is easier..you dont keep banging you forearm into the edge of the window ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

so are you all for laws that dont allow 16 year old to drive 5.0 liter mustangs?? anyone can play "what if" all day long. odds are, if they were unsafe enough to consistently cause problems, someone saw them land badly before and didnt say anything to them. accidents can and will always occur, should you raise the restriction levels higher the next time a 3000 jump vet goes in at 1.1?? training & knowledge helps to prepare and prevent accidents, not simple accumulation of numbers. experience means nothing if you dont learn anything from your first 500 jumps. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

The same ones who recommend 1.3 wingloadings to people with 30 jumps who've yet to fly anything smaller than a student canopy loaded at 1.0 or less? Um. Nope. Those people shouldn't even have ratings. And yes, it does happen. I talk to those newbies every day. so the chain of responsibility is being broken right there. Do you think the answer is in adding another layer of restriction (that could just as easily be ignored) or in training the instructors so they can train their students effectively? arent they neglecting a basic reposinbility by making recommendations on wing loading to newbies who lack the knowledge to make thier own informed decision?? IMO here is the root of the problem. it starts with how jumpers are trained right off student status. demonstrate certrain skills (Bill's list is great) to the satisfaction of a responsible, qualified coach and you can downsize. again "pencil whipping" is just wrong at any level. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

wont change my opinion at all, I read, research and evaluate everything i'm involved in rather deeply. quite a number actually. death sucks. not living in the first place is far worse. "you never know what is enough until you know what is too much" -W.Blake sometimes you survive, sometime you dont, you should always learn from those who went before you. education is the answer not restriction. how many people push the envelope just because some one says it cant be done? far better to teach what is nessesary to learn to survive than create blanket rules in a vain attempt to save the darwin candidates who will likely go in anyway when they try something thier ability and training isnt up to, no matter how many jumps they have under any wingloading... i never understand why anyone thinks restriction is a better answer than education. I guess its easier and less time consuming to create a blanket ban than it is to actually teaching someone what they need to know to keep themselves alive. dont you think AFI's are qualified to make decisions about canopy control ability? ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

nope i want coaches and AFI's to be responsible for signing off saying your OK to jump at the current wingloading you are flying..if thats to high for your abilities it should be pretty obvious to anyone who is teaching canopy control to complete amateurs(unlicensed students) and?? the only life they risked was their own. obviously stupidity and ignorance is painful, as it should be.. 50.. but its also possible that i am alot more current on the type of landing i do with my canopy than someone who has been doing "accuracy" style landings on lightly loaded 7 cells will be trying to land a completely different canopy than he has been training to. i guess the 1000 jump guy is still safer IYO under the Velocity trying a landing he has much less experience with?? do you think landing military rounds helps very much in landing sport elipticals? other than the ability to PLF well? 9 !?! whole fatalities?? out of how many total jumps??? that really isnt that many at all.. "but one is to many!!!" once again not your job to save me from myself. Anyone involved in skydiving or any other parachute activity had better know the risks before they get on the plane. The problem is that accidents happen, and happen more often to people without knowledge or training. neither of which you get solely from racking up the numbers. no responsibility is the only thing left. Make sure jumpers have the training available to them and make sure they understand the risks involved with increasing wingloadings. Make sure the coaches and instructors at each DZ pay attention to who is doing what and talk & train their jumpers as they progress from one canopy to the next with increasing wingloading..what we dont need is jumpers throwing out 50 more H&Ps just so they met an arbitrary line that says "now i'm safe to land the next size" without really learning the performance envelope for their canopy if that means 10 landings in a 10 meter circle, fine. but if someone meets that standard with 200 jumps what difference does it make? ability not quantity. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

doesnt Perris give you a free jump on your Orbit day??? i was told they did, but it was after for me and so i didnt collect.. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

and we should do the same..if at say 300 jumps your flying and landing a canopy loaded at 1.6 proficiently you should have no problems going thru say a 10 jump evaluation course to prove your ability. These kinds of classes should be offered at every DZ that teaches you to fly a canopy in the first place and once signed off at one it should be valid at any other member DZ. no need to have arbitrary numbers that say "well..300 jumps you cant be skilled/trained enough to fly a canopy loaded at more than 1.3 you just dont have the experience" without some sort of certified coaches evaluation you wouldnt even know that AFFI was qualified would you? yet you trust that someone didnt pencil whip his or her certification as well dont you? what about a D license? when you see someone with one do you trust that they met all the requirements or do you wonder if it might have been "pencil whipped" without seeing them fly?? that is my entire argument. a fixed scale does not take into account any level of coaching, currency or natural ability that should really only be judged by someone who has seen an individuals canopy skills and is willing to sign off on that evaluation, jump numbers alone cannot be used as a real yardstick. still wondering if you think some one with 1000 jumps on a spectre at 1.1 is OK to fly that velocity at 2.0 just becasue they meet the #'s requirement?? do you go out on say a 6+ way HD jump with others based soley on their jump numbers or does demonstrated ability count?? why take the ability of a DZO and their staff to determine relative safety levels out of their hands and put it into an inflexible rule system that makes decisions from afar?? ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

absolutely. who is going to ground you if you pull at lower than those altitudes? the DZO. who should be able to tell if you are capable of flying a particular canopy safely? the same people who determined if you were skilled enough to be in freefall by yourself and pilot your canopy safely to the ground the first 20 times you did it. i love this attitude that my personal safety is more important to you than my ability to decide my own fate. as i said BTFU. I am not endangering anyone but myself, by my actions. If I am observed by someone ON THE SCENE to be flying in a manner unsafe to others by all means ground me and or limit how i am flying until my skills progress to the point that i can land the canopy i'm flying safely. There should be no need for ANY new program. Arent coaches and AFIs responsible for ensuring the jumpers under their supervision are acting in a safe and reasonably controlled manner at all times?? are you saying ST&As cant judge wither a jumper is competent or not to land at their DZs??? i guess i shouldnt even bring up BASE jumping..guess that needs to be regulated too?? after all someone might kill themselves doing it..:rolleseyes: what i am saying is that the only way anyone can judge someone elses canopy control skills is by direct observation i guess just someone who has made 1000 jumps on a spectre loaded at 1.1 is now OK to go fly a Velocity loaded at 2.0? simple jump numbers should not be the primary means of determining who can fly what at what wingloading. This does not imply that some supervision is not required it is stating that draconian numbers arbitarily imposed have no real bearing on flying abilities oh well i only have 250 jumps i guess i cant have a valid opinion..this is exactly why people dont like giving out jump numbers as soon as you do anyone with more automatically thinks you cant be trusted to make rational decisions regarding your own canopy choice and flying ability. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

if you face sheep out over the cliff they push back harder.. or so i've heard i do know that it works with women who arent wearing BASE rigs ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Agreed, but are you just going to sit on the ground and watch them from the air? Or do you need to be under canopy next to them? Are you just going to trust them that they did the requirements? Is the USPA going to make a canopy control course? How are you going to get the Instructors rating? Is it like AFF where you have to go take a week off of work and have a ground, and air skills test? Is it a written test? Can a guy (S&TA, or I) with just a 1.5 "rating" certify someone to go to a 1.8? Too many questions....USPA will not touch this... Or, Jump # to wingload system: 100 jumps, 1.1 200 jumps, 1.2 300 jumps, 1.3 400 jumps, 1.4 500 jumps, 1.5 >500 Jumps, Unlimited. Hell the 500 jumps would even go with the new "D" license. do you trust the coach/JM when they sign off on the freefall requirements for each license? arent they already signing off on your canopy control skills to graduate you off AFF?? some people do it in 20 some may take 50 but having strict number requirements is WAY to draconian. learning curves are different for different people. Some spend more time focused on learning & practicing specific skills on every jump, not on simply landing the canopy. Doing so under supervision by some one who can vouch for your canopy control skills is no different than the system used to "certify" freefall skills. If a coach or AFI is 'pencil-whipping" any of those they are just as wrong in the first place. no reason to require someone to "Crank out" the H&Ps just to reach an arbitrary number when they have already demonstrated the skills necessary to progress..I agree some kind of mentor and coaching system will greatly benefit everyones flying skills, but lets not slavishly tie it to jump numbers as an indication of ability. That is exactly why we have coach systems in the first place. Lets just start using them better. [rant]the freedom to risk my life in anyway i chose (that does not endanger another) should be fundamental to american skydiving. anyone who thinks its their job to "protect me from myself" needs to BTFU. the only limiting authority should be the DZO/ST&A providing the altitude who has seen my canopy abilities, not an arbitrary board handing down decrees from the adminsphere[/rant] 250 jumps..currently flying various 150s@1.3 and not planning on downsizing further for at least 100 jumps personal preference not an mandated rule. self determination is more important than safety ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.