nathaniel

++ Well put. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

watching someone else's malfunction, esp from in the air My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

That's true when you're starting from scratch with zero data about where you are or what time it is. In principle, though, a GPS receiver is only likely to travel a fairly short distance between measurements. So it's possible for a GPS receiver to have a clock in it, and to have a memory of recent locations, so that it can estimate to greater precision with fewer satellites. I'm not sure to what if any degree real-world portable receivers do this... I know that I've used GPS receivers at work for time synchronization & they take advantage of this to eke out better data. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

sure, why not thx in advance. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

There's a similar phenomenon in online games. Confessions of griefer Inflicting pain on griefers all about twinks Managing an online game post-launch free registration req'd and from the opposite perspective Myg0t A griefer support site. Portions are quite offensive. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

That'd stack the deck pretty harshly against anyone who should get listed. They'd have their work cut out for them to convince you they're safe, in order for you to even consider letting them jump again. Is that not desirable? Then you could charge em double As a DZO, you'd get to decide, and if you saw fit you could refuse to permit them at all. I think that's perhaps a suitable sanction. Hence the arbitration process. There has to be some fee up front on the complainant, to keep bogus complaints down and to renumerate the arbitrator. But given the current price ranges already involved in the sport I don't think it would be unreasonable. edit for elaboration: If the DZO had acted in a grossly inappropriate fashion, he should be sanctioned. For starters, the arbitration body should award the aggrieved party the compensation of the arbitration fee (ie, from the DZO's wallet), & if further sanction were required it would be determined by the arbitrator, fines, censure, revocation of privileges, or whatever they deem sufficient & appropriate. This type of scenario is common in other industries. The best analogue I can think of (actually, the inspiration) is the NASD's arbitration system. No harm done, it's just an idea. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

You'd make it as painless as possible. Electronic, if electronic would be less painful than paper. But you're right, it wouldn't work without DZO's & S&TA's participation. They'd have to buy in to the value of the system. Just like the other rules. They could print a list at the beginning of the day or weekend, fax machine or computer printout, or circular. Computer printout would be cheapest to set up for the list operator, it could be just a website or an email mailing list. It could be a CGI script for interactive queries...how often do new, already licensed, jumpers show up at typical DZs? I'm guessing on the order of a dozen or two tops per day at the busiest DZs on the weekends, with the exception of season-openers & special events. Season openers & special events typically require special planning, I understand. Under the most ideal circumstance, manifest software already deployed could be modified to support automatic update and cross reference. DZs running without specialized software could update their lists less often, or cross-reference less often. As long as it happened with reasonable frequency (ie, significantly less than the average "sentence"), most of the value would remain. It will never be instantaneous to get on the list, or for distributed lists to be updated. The same inefficiencies apply to whitelists. There will necessarily be a gap between when a jumper is declared & when the declaration takes effect, even if it's just the time it takes for the S&TA to run to the nearest phone / PC & submit the new information. As long as the distributed lists are updated regularly, and the interval of probation is significantly greater than the distribution interval, most of the value will remain. If the effective dates of the probation "sentences" are distributed along with the USPA lic #s, at least it will cut off the tail end. It would have to be more timely than the publication of Parachutist, that's for sure, but it wouldn't require typesetting or fancy graphics. I'm not sure what the point of that is...by comparison, a jumper who's made it onto a whitelist is still human & falliable. What's the distinction? Under the scenario that training is a way to get off the gray-list, then the gray list would be updated when the instructor submits evidence that the jumper has passed the course. As long as the jumper's name appears on a current gray-list, he's still "officially" gray-listed. The jumper is cleared when his name is removed from the list. Just like there's a delay before your printed license gets sent to you, although there's some flexibility by waving around your signed off test card. Speaking of which, part of probation could be a reduced license stature. D& C license reduced to B or A, and resulting with either re-testing to the orginal license or expiration of the penalty. I think, in a way, dr penniless was onto something when he remarked about rules vs exceptions. There are plenty of people who would push the limits with the knowledge of the risks they undertake. And then there are people that take risks that attract your intercession. Classifying everybody into the clueless category is counterproductive; being an adult and / or citizen should be enough to bring a person this much respect. But the actions that a jumper chooses may cause us to revisit our generous assessment of them. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Sure, but those will be factors in any test-out scenario in the WL BSR proposal. They are, I contend, comparable between the two. And if it's a really big deal, there could be an arbitration policy. Both for WL BSR proposal test-outs and for contestation of probation. In all cases, members that abuse the system should be sanctioned, just like the existing frameworks. Example of arbitration policy: 1) both parties agree not to sue & abide by the decision of the appointed arbitrators 2) complainant puts up $50 3) USPA selects 2 or 3 uninvolved S&TAs or DZO's from other parts of the country to be the arbitration board 4) arbitrators evaluate the arguments & render judgement, judgement could include forcing the defendant to repay the arbitration fee to the complainant 5) arbitrators split the money amongst themselves, USPA keeps $5 to cover the cost of the paperwork & recordskeeping Simple arbitration systems like this have worked well in other industries. Thinking big, I bet something like this might even have a place in the standard waiver, in which I suspect it may be already for some DZs. Having an arbitration body filled out with (cough, responsible) jumpers should make the process of deciding fact from fiction a bit more efficient. I contend that by the method used--jump numbers and wing loads--it's essentially impossible for it to be an ideal, and that in fact there's a greater inefficiency that the proponents would admit. Despite their best intentions & efforts. I think the measure would be improved by cutting out that bit. I think that judgement, as all the posters we have on this board have demonstrated, is a little too elusive to be effectively put into written form, although not too elusive to be practiced & observed. Lists are easy to keep, it could be just a phone call, or a website. I'd run a website myself, if you like. Tho I don't think it would carry much weight without endorsement--I should think many toes would get stepped on without the appropriate level of buy-in. I'm open to ideas. The two that I've proposed so far are 1) automatic expiry 2) automatic expiry with conditions If it was a website, then with a web browser. Maybe with a daily fax. Or a telephone call. Or perhaps many ways. Circulars might start to get expensive, but if there was enough buy-in the cost of a circular could likely be borne. Websites, on the other hand, are cheap. The USPA has already got one. That's a particularly difficult question that a BSR can't solve. It's a judgement call, as it seems all of us have said at one point or another. It's clear in some cases, and less so in others. I think one advantage that a gray-list holds over a whitelist (ie, the test-out condition of today's most popular rendition of the WL BSR) is that when a DZO or S&TA calls someone out, they would make a one-way assertion that the jumper is behaving dangerously. I think it might provide a harder target for legal action, and thus be easier for a DZO or S&TA to take action without fear of legal consequences should that the jumper involved should manage to hurt himself after the listing. Some people have raised concern that a DZO or S&TA would be hesitant to whitelist a jumper for fear of adverse consequences if the jumper were to subsequently injure himself. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

It's not productive to go dismiss alternate viewpoints because you are not fond of them. That's a fallacy in and of itself. Regardless of experience, we should all recognize this. Truly good ideas are forged and tempered by the fires of debate. Not extinguished. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

It is exactly this part that changes. There's no more speaking terms to work out, just a published list of registered jumpers. Training & education are not excluded from the idea. It could be part of the process, that to exit probationary status, or just by virtue of entering probationary status, additional training could be required. nathaniel now if you'll forgive me, I've a flight to catch. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

There is already a USPA probation list? nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

It would facilitate greater efforts to shape a jumper's preferences. IMO it's fruitless to attempt to influence a population's actions without influencing their motives. Either the DZ permits the jumper to exceed his capacity or not. A DZO or S&TA could certify the jumper beyond his capacity even with the BSR. I have seen that BSRs are typically enforced at the discretion of the DZ--more or less as intended, I understand. And the difference is in the assumptions made about the populations. The BSR introduces friction around the edges of the groups it defines. A probation system has friction, too, but it might not be so unreasonable as some algebraic concoction. Suggested guidelines would have to accompany the introduction of probation, under any circumstance. For instance, it might be more reasonable to make the current BSR proposal terms under which probation jumpers would have to abide by virtue of their status. Part of the problem, as you describe, seems to be that the system is too flexible right now. I think that one of the major problems with the BSR proposal is that it's too rigid, yes, including with the test-out provision. A gray-list could be a step toward greater consistency, while not eliminating flexibility altogether. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

It still be the jumper's responsibility to ensure his own safety. If he's at a DZ that already knows he's exceeding his capacity & tolerates this (ie, waiver style), then no amount of regulation will change this. In practical terms. DZO's are already allowed to waive many BSRs. But DZs would have the information they need to make their own decisions. They could charge more, or insist on coached jumps, or just give the fellow a stern talking to. Who knows, but the DZ would be able to make the decision based on their best judgement. Some DZs might even not allow marked jumpers to fly, and it is reasonable, IMO, that the circumstances may mean that this is appropriate. For example, a small DZ might not have the training staff on hand to deal with it. Call it USPA probation. It would be harder to forge a gray-list. than a specification on a license. USPA license # could be correlated with name, and name could be correlated with gov't ID. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

OK. Here's an idea. How about a gray-list. Instead of trying to find some illusory boundary between safe jumpers & dangerous jumpers primarily by their jump numbers, or perhaps in addition to a BSR proposal, why not put together a central watch-list of jumpers displaying unsafe tendencies. Just a list of USPA license numbers. Little or no other personally identifying information. And only DZO's & certified S&TO's could nominate a jumper to the list. Not so much a blacklist, you wouldn't want to kick them out of the sport, but a way to communicate between DZ's about people who may need additional guidance. An entry would expire without a trace after a fixed amount of time, say 1 year, or say, until another DZO & S&TA would recommend them off (I know, unlikely). Since all (practically all?) DZ's will record jumpers USPA number before letting them jump, it would be a way for DZ's to address problem jumpers going from one DZ to the next. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I apologize if it seems like I'm thread-pooping. I'm not out to stifle the BSR proposal(s) for being what it is, rather I'd like to see some better justification for it & I'd like to see people think a little more rationally about it. Honestly, I'd join the chorus of proponents with the same vigor if I were convinced of the BSR proposal's appropriateness. For instance, I'm more convinced by Kallend's old proposal of restricting people by age & sex, than by jump #. But I know that wouldn't go over well with your average jumper. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

If we can't have a study. let's at least have some good reaoning. Rational arguments are free. From other posts on this board it appears that there are more than one person with a lot of experience and time that realize that a WL BSR hasn't been adequately justified. Well sure, if you only consider the successes, the success rate is 100%. And let whosoever shall figure this out produce some sound arguments for whatever they come up with. I'm not going to touch this one. You complain about debating games, yet you produce remarks like this. It's important that whatsoever gets done, is done with the reasonable expecation that it shall improve the situation. As soon as we have such a means, we should exercise it, but not before. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

If you never consider dissent, you'll start to find all sorts of corkscrew ideas can become palatable over time. Is it possible for you to conceive that I mean just as well as you, only I've got a different perspective? You don't have to prove anything to anybody. And you're still linking me to my words. You seem unwilling or incapable of judging the concepts on their merits. I think they have value, but I think they've proven to be seriously unreliable when they stand alone. For the same reason that you wouldn't ship your VX to just any random jumper with more than 1000 jumps and more than 5 years in the sport. I am trying to make things better, but I'm not able to come up with any particularly good ideas. I try not to get upset with others when I can't reasonably defend my ideas, I let them go and move on. In fact, if you dig through the history of this forum you'll find that I did put up some ideas and they were quickly dashed to bits. I do not cling to them. Some problems are difficult to solve. We should not get distracted by trying to turn lead to gold. No contention here about that. Given the graveness of this situation, it is especially key that we not let our emotions mislead us. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

And what do they have to show for it? A fatality rate that's not changed significantly over time, only changed in its incidence. No, time and experience are indisputable. At least they were till the Rennaissance. It's strictly possible that, should a BSR be passed, it could potentially do good. Irrespective of how it would turn out, though, that the outcome is uncertain today makes it a bad idea to do so today. The USPA ought to exercise greater jurisprudence. Having good quantitative data to back up a proposal would go a long way to justify a proposal. Having a rational basis for a proposal would go further. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

The minimum deployment BSR says Ds can open at 2000, but few do so as a matter of practice, wouldn't you agree? And lowtimers like me open at 3500 or more even if 3000 is the line. Hooknswoop and I have gone over this in PMs, and to rehash: Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I cannot show that the pull-altitude BSR is bad, and that's why I'm not (not right now, anyway) debating for its repeal. We cannot simply compare pull-altitudes before and after, because pull-altitudes are not the sumtotal of jumpers' actions, and the pull-altitude BSR wasn't the only thing that changed in the early '90s that could influence jumpers' behaviour, specifically pull altitude. But, I think it's not just a co-incidence that the first reliable AADs entered the market in the early '90s, and that their introduction co-incided with decreases in no-pull incidents. What would the fatality results look like if we were to count AAD saves as no-pulls? There's been several dozen of them. While some of them were jumpers showing extremely poor judgement and deciding not to pull & "waiting for the CYPRES to fire", it's unreasonable to think that reliable AADs have not contributed to the decline in no-pull fatalities. Whereas there's little evidence at all (at least that I've seen), to indicate that the pull-altitude BSR has had any effect, plus or minus. Other than the time-correlation that it shares with reliable AADs. And there's nothing to say that both reliable AADs and pull-altitude rules couldn't be factors simultaneously. Just the evidence we have pertains more to AADs than to pull-altitude rules. The question we're debating here is not whether pull-altitude rules are good or bad, it's whether new rules about wing loadings are justified, and the two are not comparable. Although if you like we can start a separate thread to debate the merits of pull-altitude rules, inside & outside the context of reliable AADs. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I don't want a fast ass canopy, not right now anyway. I'm quite happy with what I've got--be careful with your presumptions. But I still think these proposals could reasonably do more harm than good, or possibly do nothing at all, and I think the burden is on the proponents to show otherwise. ie with more than their good intentions. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I think a lot of supporters aren't able to distinguish between their good intentions and their proposals. Life would be different if earnestly meaning well could change the character of a proposed regulation. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

You know, HK's massive housing projects were started by the British, and cancelled by the Chinese. Go figure nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Some people live lives that are vulnerable to the types of villains that are known to patrol these boards. Come to Chicago when it's warm & I'll jump with you if you doubt my integrity, or perhaps I'll look you up next time I'm in your vicinity, if you like. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Brakes save lives by comparison to how many people would die if they attempted to drive the same way except for not having brakes. But that's not a fair comparison, people wouldn't drive the same way if they didn't have brakes. What brakes do, essentially, is allow you to drive differently (ie, faster, and closer to other cars). You should not expect all people would fly their canopies the same way if they were required to buy a canopy that performs differently from the one they'd have purchased without restriction. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

You don't have to share the road with them, you can stay at home. Or just keep a safe distance. Well, for starters, it's off topic . Just about all the BSR proposals have included some way of testing out, either through experience or through some sort of test. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?