What is a fair penalty?
Jan Meyer
Suppose he came thru his collision unscathed.
What would be a fair reprimand for his digression of jeopardizing the
safety of others?
If a jumper with a history of *unsafe* approaches, repeatedly has close
calls and then one day nails someone big time, then what do we do???
Should a DZO ban the jumper?
Should the rest of us, just say 'no I don't want to be in the same
airspace as this jumper'?
--
Jan Meyer
mailto:Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com
http://www.MakeItHappen.com
http://www.DiveMaker.com
Josh
>
> remember that guy that took out the spectator at Eloy a few weeks back??
>
> Suppose he came thru his collision unscathed.
> What would be a fair reprimand for his digression of jeopardizing the
> safety of others?
>
> If a jumper with a history of *unsafe* approaches, repeatedly has close
> calls and then one day nails someone big time, then what do we do???
>
> Should a DZO ban the jumper?
> Should the rest of us, just say 'no I don't want to be in the same
> airspace as this jumper'?
To some extent, it depends upon the attitude of the jumper in question.
If they *really* know they fucked up, they might not need drastic
discipline. OTOH, if they seem oblivious, then maybe bannishment or the
cold shoulder are a good idea. Based on what I've read on the NG, and
the assumption that it's accurate (which is a BIG assumption), the
jumper should be asked to go away pending some significant effort on
their part to make amends and convince everyone that they are wiser for
the mishap.
-Josh
kr...@philly.infi.net
A history of this sort of thing? Well, I guess a grounding would be
the only fair penalty ... not just at one dz, but perhaps having his
USPA membership pulled for a year. Of course, this isn't gonna ground
him everywhere ... but it sure will keep him off most of the
"happening" dz's.
This sort of thing happens again after that? Permanently pull it.
But, the jumper without such a history ... this sort of thing happens?
... I don't know what the penalty should be. Of course, it goes
without saying that he could be subject to legal proceedings ... and
the dz in question probably ain't gonna want him there anymore ... for
their own legal protection, if nothing else ... since they may be
subject to legal proceedings themselves because of his incident.
However, discussing what's fair or not fair in that situation ain't
gonna amount to much. A dzo will make that decision at his place of
business ... plain and simple. My money tends to say that the dzo will
ask him to take his business elsewhere in the future.
But for the person who has an "unfortunate" incident, with no history
of this sort of thing, I would say mandatory participation in a canopy
control type course ... extensive retraining in basic safety
procedures, etc. ... would be the only penalty I'd be in favor of.
Shit happens, and while none of us likes to see an innocent spectator
hurt, it's not fair to be excessively hard on the jumper who is
probably feeling like shit anyway.
But a history of bad judgment? He's got to be punished ... for his own
protection as well as for our's ... and the only way to do that is to
keep him out of the air he so loves ... and let him spend that time he
is grounded thinking about the havoc he's brought into the lives of
others through his history of poor judgment.
Blue skies!
--rita
In article <39165303...@MakeItHappen.com>,
Jan Meyer <Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com> wrote:
> remember that guy that took out the spectator at Eloy a few weeks
back??
>
> Suppose he came thru his collision unscathed.
> What would be a fair reprimand for his digression of jeopardizing the
> safety of others?
>
> If a jumper with a history of *unsafe* approaches, repeatedly has
close
> calls and then one day nails someone big time, then what do we do???
>
> Should a DZO ban the jumper?
> Should the rest of us, just say 'no I don't want to be in the same
> airspace as this jumper'?
>
> --
> Jan Meyer
> mailto:Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com
> http://www.MakeItHappen.com
> http://www.DiveMaker.com
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lindsey
an issue, then the problem should've been addressed before he took someone
out. How 'bout ban 'em BEFORE they hurt someone! DZO ban the
jumper.....Expecting a public shunning sounds like an exercize in
futility....
Peace~
Lindsey
"Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly runs clean to the bone."
Jan Meyer <Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com> wrote in message
news:39165303...@MakeItHappen.com...
Cris G
>If a jumper with a history of *unsafe* approaches, repeatedly has close
>calls and then one day nails someone big time, then what do we do???
According to what I was told yesterday, it's the fault of the person on the
ground for not getting out of the way.. ROFL
blue skies
Cris
D-21518
**"De do do do, De da da da." Sting**
QWeaver
swoops a grassy area adjacent to the main area that the spectators use. There
is a fence made of 4"x4"s with a single rope strung at knee height and he
routinely passes within a few feet of this barrier at a really high rate of
speed. It looks really cool and the spectators love it. The JM seems highly
skilled at this but I'm wondering what will be the result if one of the many
small kids that frequent this spectator area runs out and gets collected by
this JM at 40 MPH. No waver will protect the DZ in this instance.
Quinton
Skyscotty
>safety of others?
Turn him into a newt....
Scott Watson
D-19166 BJDS#5
SL and IAD JM and I
"I never knew what true happiness was until I got married, but then it was too
late"
Jaques Cousteau
Paul Quade
Elsinore.
Am I right?
Paul
************
Jan Meyer wrote:
> remember that guy that took out the spectator at Eloy a few weeks back??
>
> Suppose he came thru his collision unscathed.
> What would be a fair reprimand for his digression of jeopardizing the
> safety of others?
>
> If a jumper with a history of *unsafe* approaches, repeatedly has close
> calls and then one day nails someone big time, then what do we do???
>
Paul Koning
>
> remember that guy that took out the spectator at Eloy a few weeks back??
>
> Suppose he came thru his collision unscathed.
> What would be a fair reprimand for his digression of jeopardizing the
> safety of others?
Insufficient data.
Was the collision because the jumper went into the
spectator's area or because the spectator went into
the landing area? If the latter, was the spectator
running around or standing still?
> If a jumper with a history of *unsafe* approaches, repeatedly has close
> calls and then one day nails someone big time, then what do we do???
Ground him for life.
paul
--
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
! Paul Koning, NI1D, D-20853
! Lucent Corporation, 50 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720, USA
! phone: +1 978 263 0060 ext 115, fax: +1 978 263 8386
! email: pko...@lucent.com
! Pgp: 27 81 A9 73 A6 0B B3 BE 18 A3 BF DD 1A 59 51 75
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
! "A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny
! gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."
! -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Peanut4040
>calls and then one day nails someone big time, then what do we do???
he deserves a six month grounding
David Ferree
>>What would be a fair reprimand for his digression of jeopardizing the
>>safety of others?
What about someone who does a low hook and flies under the wing of a
182 with enough speed that when the canopy goes over and the person
under the wing, the lines cut all the way through the aileron?
michael clifford
Paul Koning wrote:
> Jan Meyer wrote:
> >
> > remember that guy that took out the spectator at Eloy a few weeks back??
> >
> > Suppose he came thru his collision unscathed.
> > What would be a fair reprimand for his digression of jeopardizing the
> > safety of others?
>
> Insufficient data.
>
> Was the collision because the jumper went into the
> spectator's area or because the spectator went into
> the landing area? If the latter, was the spectator
> running around or standing still?
>
> > If a jumper with a history of *unsafe* approaches, repeatedly has close
> > calls and then one day nails someone big time, then what do we do???
>
David Laidlaw
you gotta be tight to the ground to fit under the wing, so he probably should
have had time to carve out from under it. very bad form to take out the
airplane.
Stephen
David Ferree wrote
>
>>>What would be a fair reprimand for his digression of jeopardizing the
>>>safety of others?
>
>182 with enough speed that when the canopy goes over and the person
>under the wing, the lines cut all the way through the aileron?
>
You break it, You bought it.
Nobody told me there would be a quiz,
Steve F.
jkl
> According to what I was told yesterday, it's the fault of the person on the
> ground for not getting out of the way.. ROFL
>
> blue skies
>
> Cris
> D-21518
I was told this same thing yesterday.
Don't know if it's true or not.
But I do know that if it IS true, that kind of attitude would explain
why there were so many previous close calls. The DZ had plenty of
oppportunity to address the issue prior to Saturday's incident, proving
there's more than one individual that's oblivious here.
All I know is that I won't get on the same plane with the one who walked
away Saturday. Maybe if enough people refuse to board the same aircraft
as him, the appropriate action will take place.
Has anyone talked to John DeSantis?
jkl
jkl
>
> I'm going to assume this is -really- about what happened on Saturday over at
> Elsinore.
>
> Am I right?
>
> Paul
>
You can guess pretty easily than Jan's troll was prompted by the
incident at Elsinore on Saturday. But the fact remains: it's happening
everywhere, and it's going to effect ALL of us.
A similar incident happened at Perris a couple years ago. Someone we
know and like collided with another jumper we know and like. There were
no smart-ass comments made like "You were in my way", and I believe the
"hitter" even paid the "hittee's" medical deduction. Still, he was
grounded for a year. Is a year fair? Is a month too little? I think
Jan is posing a great question here, because it's an issue that needs to
be dealt with in a manner that keeps us all safe. People just can't
carve out their bitching landings from above and behind slower canopies
without taking responsibility for their actions. hell, they even
provided a private swoop pond for those that want to do this! Doing it
in the main landing area is just begging for this kind of accident to
happen.
Some people seem to love that rush, even more so when they can do it in
front of the biggest audience. They must need to be the center of
attention so bad that they can't take that kind of action off to the
side. Well, it got everyone's attention.
jkl
Josh
> You can guess pretty easily than Jan's troll was prompted by the
> incident at Elsinore on Saturday.
> Is a year fair? Is a month too little? I think
> Jan is posing a great question here,
Then why characterize it as a troll?
-Josh
David Ferree
>Some people seem to love that rush, even more so when they can do it in
>front of the biggest audience. They must need to be the center of
>attention so bad that they can't take that kind of action off to the
>side. Well, it got everyone's attention.
"Some" people? Oh, you mean the small 99.9% of all hook turners.... ok. Of
course the hook turners will say they'd do it even if they were all alone (many
of them have said it to me, and I used to say it to others). But have you ever
noticed that when a DZ sets up a "hook turn area" like at Eloy where there are
no spectators, nobody uses it?
Of course it's about showing off. That's all it *is* about. So now what?
David
David Ferree
>>What about someone who does a low hook and flies under the wing of a
>>182 with enough speed that when the canopy goes over and the person
>>under the wing, the lines cut all the way through the aileron?
>From: dlsk...@aol.com
>This happened? good grief.
>you gotta be tight to the ground to fit under the wing, so he probably should
>have had time to carve out from under it. very bad form to take out the
>airplane.
Yeah, it happened. Was in my invicible period. Funny thing was, I felt even
more invinicble after that.
Ailerons are expensive. Oops, more invicibility; had plenty of money at the
time.
I wonder, if I had chopped off my head, would I have been more, or less of a
super hero turf surfer than I was already? It's only a matter of inches, after
all.
David
Brien K. Meehan
have to hurt anyone.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Webmasters New RevShare Program http://www.uncensored-news.com/revshare.html
Flyincamra
>I wonder, if I had chopped off my head, would I have been more, or less
>of a
>super hero turf surfer than I was already?
>It's only a matter of inches, after
>all.
I think if you had chopped off your head you definately would have been less
than you previously were...... not by much.... it's only a matter of inches
after all.
Jan Devil
Marc
>Of
>course the hook turners will say they'd do it even if they were all alone
>(many
>of them have said it to me, and I used to say it to others). But have you
>ever
>noticed that when a DZ sets up a "hook turn area" like at Eloy where there
>are
>no spectators, nobody uses it?
>
>Of course it's about showing off. That's all it *is* about. So now what?
You're wrong David. It's *not* all about showing off. My DZ has two landing
areas. One requires a D license. The other is for everyone else. I usually
land in the "everyone else" landing area because that's where my students and
video subjects land. If I'm doing AFF or video (which is most of my jumps) I'm
often one of the last groups out. I "spot" for the student or tandem I'm with
more than I do for myself. In other words, sometimes we're "out there" a bit,
so I tend to open high to make sure I can get back to the DZ. It also gives me
a chance to count canopies. This way I can account for all possible traffic.
I often float around in brakes in order to let everyone else land so that I can
have clear air. The result of all of this is that by the time I land most of
the experienced jumpers have either: a) landed in the "D license" area; or, b)
landed in the main LZ and already started walking back. The students and
tandems are still above me, and everyone else is gone, so I often *do* land
without an "audience." The lack of an audience doesn't affect my landings one
bit. It's nice to have an audience, but my landings are for me.
Blue Skies,
Marc
Josh2Anna
>Of course it's about showing off. That's all it *is* about. So now what?
>
do.
You can not see inside my head.
--Asshole.
Jan Meyer
>
> I'm going to assume this is -really- about what happened on Saturday over at
> Elsinore.
>
> Am I right?
You can be right.
You can be dead right too.
Now answer the questions.
> Jan Meyer wrote:
>
> > remember that guy that took out the spectator at Eloy a few weeks back??
> >
> > Suppose he came thru his collision unscathed.
> > What would be a fair reprimand for his digression of jeopardizing the
> > safety of others?
> >
> > If a jumper with a history of *unsafe* approaches, repeatedly has close
> > calls and then one day nails someone big time, then what do we do???
> >
> > Should a DZO ban the jumper?
> > Should the rest of us, just say 'no I don't want to be in the same
> > airspace as this jumper'?
Will Packard
<snip>
> "Some" people? Oh, you mean the small 99.9% of all hook turners.... ok. Of
> course the hook turners will say they'd do it even if they were all alone (many
> of them have said it to me, and I used to say it to others). But have you ever
> noticed that when a DZ sets up a "hook turn area" like at Eloy where there are
> no spectators, nobody uses it?
>
>
You mean that if no one were around to see your landing, you wouldn't hook it?
Will
David Ferree
>I think if you had chopped off your head you definately would have been less
>than you previously were...... not by much.... it's only a matter of inches
>after all.
See, that's why I like you, Jan. For a cranky old frustrated sour grapes type,
you're still clever as hell. :-)
David
David Ferree
>david wrote.
>>Of course it's about showing off. That's all it *is* about. So now what?
>>
>Who do you think you are telling me why I or anybody else do the things they
>do.
>You can not see inside my head.
>--Asshole.
Yeah, the truth used to piss me off too. :-)
David
David Ferree
I guess to complete the analogy you could start making practice posts, without
an audience.
Come on. You know as well as anyone what hooks are all about. It's for the
high fives, the looks, the impressed. The only difference between the ones
that say it and the ones that deny it is how much they are willing to admit.
Kind of like base jumpers.
David
(ow, my side hurts)
Fastsftail
speak for yourself
>So now what?
stop showing off before you kill yourself
Fastsftail
>What would be a fair reprimand for his digression of jeopardizing the
>safety of others?
why does he deserve special treatment if he was scathed. let's say he busts
himself up pretty good. in my opinion the pain of his own recovery pays for
his stupidity as it pertains to himself only. it doesn't pay for the damage he
does to the spectator.
if i'm the dzo i ban him until he consents to a deviate sexual act (i had to
get sex in here someplace). then i'd get a really good lawyer for the incoming
lawsuit from the spectator, especially if he had a history of taking people out
and i continued to let him jump at my dz.
if i' m the spectator i sue the a-hole who takes me out in civil court for
damages. then i sue the dzo, unless i was specifically warned that sitting in
a bleacher set off the landing area was life threatening. i'd really take it
to the dzo if i find out he knew the guy was dangerous but getting his $15 was
more important.
isn' t america great.
.
Flyincamra
>See, that's why I like you, Jan. For a cranky old frustrated sour grapes
>type,
>you're still clever as hell. :-)
What the hell do you mean, "old"?????
Jan Devil
David Ferree
Thank you. Already did. :-)
stuDent
David Ferree wrote:
>
> >From: jkl bas...@home.com
>
> >Some people seem to love that rush, even more so when they can do it in
> >front of the biggest audience. They must need to be the center of
> >attention so bad that they can't take that kind of action off to the
> >side. Well, it got everyone's attention.
>
> "Some" people? Oh, you mean the small 99.9% of all hook turners.... ok. Of
> course the hook turners will say they'd do it even if they were all alone (many
> of them have said it to me, and I used to say it to others). But have you ever
> noticed that when a DZ sets up a "hook turn area" like at Eloy where there are
> no spectators, nobody uses it?
>
> Of course it's about showing off. That's all it *is* about. So now what?
>
> David
In '98 at Z-Hills I was standing behind the beer line watching all the hot
swoopers
zoom in for landings, they were stopping inches in front of the beer line. I
was somewhere in the AFF progression, Doug Parks was my JM.
While watching the hook turners (of course I didn't know what a hook turn
was then) wizz by, feet tucked to the side, ass inches from the ground pop
the canopy up at the last possible second and step into a prefect standing
position with no forward movement at all, turn and collapse their canopy, a
really good show some of them put on,
I asked Doug why they landed like they did. He smiled and said, "To some
people, *style* is what skydiving is all about." I understand what he meant
today, but I didn't back then.
I still don't have any style..well, unless you consider landing in the huge
student area doing downwinders every chance I get style :-) I just like
doing them on low wind days!
I break for skydivers, spectators too.
james@pahokee
Oh yeah...fair penalty. Cut the lines off their main, braid all but the last
foot or so and give'em 40 lashes, wet the lines first.
skybytch
minimum a nice long grounding. At a maximum pull his/her USPA membership.
In either case, paying the victim's medical bills would be a nice touch
IMHO.
Pull, flare and land in the student landing area,
Lisa
Jan Meyer <Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com> wrote in message
news:39165303...@MakeItHappen.com...
> remember that guy that took out the spectator at Eloy a few weeks back??
>
> Suppose he came thru his collision unscathed.
> What would be a fair reprimand for his digression of jeopardizing the
> safety of others?
>
LORD OF THE SKY
Jan Meyer wrote in message <39165303...@MakeItHappen.com>...
>remember that guy that took out the spectator at Eloy a few weeks back??
>
>Suppose he came thru his collision unscathed.
>What would be a fair reprimand for his digression of jeopardizing the
>safety of others?
>
>If a jumper with a history of *unsafe* approaches, repeatedly has close
>calls and then one day nails someone big time, then what do we do???
If a jumper has a "history " of unsafe approaches and repeated
close calls at one particular DZ,It would seem that one of the two following
statements are true; a)the S+TA has not been performing his duties. b)the
DZO has not followed through on the S+TAs' advice.
In either case the DZ in question is not operating in a reasonably
safe manner and is probably not a wise choice to patronize.
If you've continued to support this DZ through their continued
disregard for safety , you have become an instrument to the propagation of
the problem ,IMO.
Sure, you can close the gate once the cows are out, but it
doesn't help much. I think it's much better if we all check the gate as we
go by.
"Treetop" a.k.a LORD OF THE SKY
turtle
the outlaw attitude that reaches right up to the S&TA and DZO. It
seems that in this case "style" is a cavilier attitude toward
safety with these people. It's unfortunate that new skydivers get
exposed to this undercurrent as it promotes unsafe attitudes in
skydiving. To me it's a matter of knowing where to jump. Some
DZ's are safer than o
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Jan Meyer
>
> >Of course it's about showing off. That's all it *is* about.
>
>
> >So now what?
>
> stop showing off before you kill yourself
stop showing off before you kill someone else
jkl
Maybe the word "chum" would work for you????
jkl
Marc
You seem to be talking about what the "truth" is for you, David. Let me be the
first to assure you that what holds true for you may very well not apply to
others.
Please do not inflict your limitations upon me.
Blue Skies,
Marc
KATHEEJ58
general? There are a lot of details that need to be known before anyone should
determine what kind of punishment someone should get. Sometimes the accident
itself can be punishment enough for someone.
KATHEEJ58
KATHEEJ58
David Ferree
<Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com> said:
>Fastsftail wrote:
>>
>> >Of course it's about showing off. That's all it *is* about.
>>
>> speak for yourself
>>
>> >So now what?
>>
>> stop showing off before you kill yourself
>
>stop showing off before you kill someone else
Since you're following up on a question I asked ("So now what?"), I
can only hope you're directing that at someone else. Would be kind of
funny if not, though.
David
kizzie92
> calls and then one day nails someone big time, then what do we do???
>
> Should the rest of us, just say 'no I don't want to be in the same
> airspace as this jumper'?
Where do the USPA / CSPA come in on issues like this? Do they conduct
their own investigations? And based on their findings can they then
order a grounding or maybe pull a rating or two? I'd be interested to
know.
Anyway, spectators shudn't be gettin mangled in the spectator areas.
Make the perpatrator fly a Manta for a few months. That'll hurt!
> --
> Jan Meyer
> mailto:Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com
> http://www.MakeItHappen.com
> http://www.DiveMaker.com
>
--
I have no wish to attain immortality through my work.
I wish to attain immortality through not dying
Woody All
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Flyincamra
>
>>Of course it's about showing off. That's all it *is* about.
>
>speak for yourself
>
>>So now what?
>
>stop showing off before you kill yourself
I think he did.
Jan Devil
Paul Quade
> You can be right.
> You can be dead right too.
> Now answer the questions.
Ok, it's a fair question. Here's my rambling answer . . .
Jan, I assume you know a bit of this, but I'll recap for others.
I come from a aviation background -- commercial pilot and an active airplane
flight instructor for a couple of years. I still hold my CFI rating, but
don't give much instruction since I started skydiving a little over two
years ago. (Too much fun skydiving with buddies!)
When I first entered the skydiving community, I was shocked at how similar
and how VERY different certain aspects were. One of the things that shocked
me the most was the "outlaw" attitude. To wit, if the government or some
other authority figure says you're not supposed to do something, give it a
shot anyway and if you don't die then nobody will care.
In my opinion, -this- is the first thing that needs to change.
In FAA-speak, this is called the "Anti-authority" hazarous attitude. As an
instructor, you're supposed to give your students a self-assessment test so
that they (in theory) begin to understand a little bit about how they make
decisions. It's almost a standard part of most flight operations hiring
process.
See;
http://www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/ACS/60-22.txt
A couple of other things that the FAA has right is it's tiered structure for
dealing with minor problems that crop up before they become large problems.
Again, the first line of defense here is the CFI. If the CFI isn't sure
about a student's ability to make prudent decisions, there's -always- a next
level. CFI, Chief Instructor, Designated Pilot Examiner, FAA. There is a
huge hoop you -must- jump through to become a fully certificated pilot --
the checkride. Usually about four hours for a private certificate.
I realize that most jump schools have a similar structure, but it's far less
formal and much easier to slip an iffy student through the cracks. For
instance, with a -few- exceptions, no examiners may work directly for a
flight school. This way there's no incentive to simply "Santa Claus" the
student a pilot's certificate.
Even after the student gets his pilot's certificate, he's still usually
required to jump through some hoops before being allowed to rent an aircraft
from an unfamiliar company (FBO). This is known as a checkout and is
usually a requirement of the insurance company for the aircraft. So, even
though the individual might be Chuck Yeager, if he wants to rent a Cessna
150, he's still going up for about an hour with a local CFI to go over
emergency procedures, stalls, landings . . . things like that.
What kind of briefing are most DZs giving to visiting jumpers?
Ok, so what happens to the pilots that own there own aircraft and never have
to rent?
Among other things, every two years you have to spend an hour on the ground
receiving instruction and an hour in the air with a CFI to remain "current."
As far as I can tell, after a skydiver gets his "A License" he never has to
hear another word of instruction from anybody about the subject -- or even
think about it.
Also as a pilot, if you're operating in controlled airspace, you're almost
under constant surveilence by agents of the FAA -- controllers. If they
don't like something you did procedurally, you're probably going to be asked
to call the tower on landing. This -may- just be a phone call to discuss
some finer points or it may be the start of something much bigger.
If it's just a finer point, the FAA -may- have an "Aviation Safety Counslor"
have a little chat with you. If it's a bigger deal, then you'll get a
letter in the mail and possibly a kind of FAA summons. If it's a really big
deal the FAA has no qualms about pulling all your certificates almost
instantly.
I can gaurantee that if you go to a major airport and land an airplane in
the wrong direction that would be considered a -really- big deal.
At the DZ, you'll probably get yelled at by the jumper that you cut off.
Maybe an LO or even DZO will step up, but other than a very few instances I
don't think too many people get their certificates pulled. Or even sent
home for the day.
What I have learned over the years is why the FAA has written -most- rules
-- somebody died. Actually, they usually wait until a pattern develops and
when enough people die over and over again from the exact same thing, then
they write a rule. Not really that bad of a plan and I can't say that there
are really too many FARs I can find fault with.
I think the same can be said about the SIM and BSRs. The major difference
is the handling of problems -before- they get out of control.
The skydiving community needs to start losing the "outlaw" image and start
getting serious about safety. Sorry Snuffy, but if you think the "outlaw"
tradition can continue with this many people, then it's just going to
continue to rain bodies. Skydiving needs to start sending some people home
for the day early in the game before a pattern develops that gets out of
control. Deny people what they love and they'll do what it takes to get it
back, including following the rules.
If you think about it, the reason these "careless and wreckless" type of
accidents occur is because we let them.
Oh yeah, one more thing (maybe two) and this one might get me in hot water
with some DZs. Report -serious and extreme- problems to the local FAA FSDO
for violation of FAR 105.13, but ask your pilot to cover himself first by
filing a NASA ASRS form. He -should- know what a NASA ASRS form is. It's
his "get out of jail free" card.
See;
http://olias.arc.nasa.gov/ASRS/ASRS.html
Paul
AerialFcs
It doesn't matter if you are driving a car or driving a parachute recklessly,
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE!
Especially when you have been warned and you have a history of close calls and
ignoring warnings.
tom sanders
Paul Quade
Care to comment about Clem? Do you know how he's doing?
Paul
*********
Skyscotty
Scott Watson
D-19166 BJDS#5
SL and IAD JM and I
"I never knew what true happiness was until I got married, but then it was too
late"
Jaques Cousteau
Josh
No, it wouldn't. It still implies something less than honorable
intentions on her part. Near as I can tell, Jan was seeking input on an
issue important to all of us. She was not simply stirring the pot as is
implied by either of your terms of choice. So go back to your god damn
laboratory and classroom, you've got nothing to contribute to our real
world discussion.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That is a troll, see the difference? ;)
-Josh
Josh
>
> >From: jkl bas...@home.com
>
> >Some people seem to love that rush, even more so when they can do it in
> >front of the biggest audience. They must need to be the center of
> >attention so bad that they can't take that kind of action off to the
> >side. Well, it got everyone's attention.
>
> "Some" people? Oh, you mean the small 99.9% of all hook turners.... ok. Of
> course the hook turners will say they'd do it even if they were all alone (many
> of them have said it to me, and I used to say it to others). But have you ever
> noticed that when a DZ sets up a "hook turn area" like at Eloy where there are
> no spectators, nobody uses it?
>
Well, showing off is definately a factor, but it's not all. Not by a
long shot.
Does the presence of an audience increase aggressive canopy flight? Yes,
it can.
Does the absence of an audience preclude it? Nope.
A few of my best surfs were done without any witnesses at all. I wish
someone had seen them, but enjoyed each one thoroughly anyway.
Hell, I didn't want anyone to see my first attempt at a pond swoop, but
I tried it anyway-for my own satisfaction, most definately not to show
off. I knew there wasn't a chance in hell that my swoop would stand out
for it's quality, but I wanted to try. Sure enough, it stood out as one
of the wetter swoops of the day!
-Josh
Peanut4040
>get sex in here someplace).
thanks buddy, it keeps me interested in the thread...
Marc
>Yeah, Marc. Kind of like posting here, huh?
Nope. Not at all like posting here.
>I guess to complete the analogy you could start making practice posts,
>without
>an audience.
It's a flawed analogy.
>Come on. You know as well as anyone what hooks are all about. It's for the
>high fives, the looks, the impressed.
Gee, and here I thought it was because it was FUN. Are there sometimes "high
fives" and such? Sure, but so what? I high five my students if they do a good
skydive. I high five my friends if they do something cool and fun in freefall.
So what if I also high five them or they high five me after a nice landing?
It's all about FUN. An audience is not required.
As I stated before, I very often land *without* any audience. The lack of an
audience doesn't affect my landings one bit. I don't think "Oh Gee, nobody to
impress, I guess I'll just fly this approach straight in." Nope. I still go
for the surf because it's for ME. I really ENJOY a nice long turf-surf,
whether there's an audience present or not. For me, it's not about having an
audience to show off for. It's about FUN. Your mileage apparently varies.
The only difference between the ones
>that say it and the ones that deny it is how much they are willing to admit.
I'm a pretty straight-forward guy, so it's not that I'm not "willing to admit"
something here. It's simply that your statements do not hold true for me.
Maybe they do hold true for you. Maybe they do hold true for a lot of people.
But they don't hold true for me. For me, fast landings are about FUN. I'm not
going to say that I don't enjoy having an audience too -- I do -- but the
audience is purely secondary. Let me say that again -- the audience is purely
secondary. The audience is most certainly NOT what it's "all about." Not for
me. I don't skydive for an audience and I don't land for an audience. I do it
for ME, because I enjoy it, and I do it with or without the audience.
Blue Skies,
Marc
Peanut4040
>with some DZs. Report -serious and extreme- problems to the local FAA FSDO
>for violation of FAR 105.13, but ask your pilot to cover himself first by
>filing a NASA ASRS form. He -should- know what a NASA ASRS form is. It's
>his "get out of jail free" card.
>
>See;
>http://olias.arc.nasa.gov/ASRS/ASRS.html
>
>
>Paul
Come on,, tell de truth,, either yew law enforcement or a deacon at de baptist
church.
David Ferree
>>>david wrote.
>>>>Of course it's about showing off. That's all it *is* about. So now what?
>You seem to be talking about what the "truth" is for you, David. Let me be the
>first to assure you that what holds true for you may very well not apply to
>others.
>
>Please do not inflict your limitations upon me.
That's ok, Marc. The same people who believe you will also be
impressed by your doing hook turns for yourself. You'll probably
live. Besides, I did say 99.9% and there are certainly more than 1000
people out there doing hook turns. You *could* be one of the .1%.
David
David Ferree
>David Ferree wrote:
>> Of course it's about showing off. That's all it *is* about. So now what?
>Well, showing off is definately a factor, but it's not all. Not by a
>long shot.
>Does the presence of an audience increase aggressive canopy flight? Yes,
>it can.
>Does the absence of an audience preclude it? Nope.
>A few of my best surfs were done without any witnesses at all. I wish
>someone had seen them, but enjoyed each one thoroughly anyway.
>Hell, I didn't want anyone to see my first attempt at a pond swoop, but
>I tried it anyway-for my own satisfaction, most definately not to show
>off. I knew there wasn't a chance in hell that my swoop would stand out
>for it's quality, but I wanted to try. Sure enough, it stood out as one
>of the wetter swoops of the day!
>-Josh
So you were practicing your swoops so you could get better at it
before showing off, and that's part of your argument that you don't do
it to show off? I think you missed the point of my comment. Maybe
it's the term "show off" that has you. I never said it was a bad
thing. Not knowing or admitting to how your own mind works, not a bad
thing either; at least not for 99.9% of the population.
David
David Ferree
>I don't land for an audience. I do it
>for ME, because I enjoy it, and I do it with or without the audience.
>
Ok, maybe.
Peanut4040
>>for ME, because I enjoy it, and I do it with or without the audience.
hehehe,, i dont land for an audience either, i got me a new main parachute, ,,
Will Packard
> >first to assure you that what holds true for you may very well not apply to
> >others.
> >
> >Please do not inflict your limitations upon me.
>
> That's ok, Marc. The same people who believe you will also be
> impressed by your doing hook turns for yourself. You'll probably
> live. Besides, I did say 99.9% and there are certainly more than 1000
> people out there doing hook turns. You *could* be one of the .1%.
>
> David
I know a lot of people who do high performance landings, and the vast
majority do it for fun, first and foremost.
I don't get adrenaline from high-fives. I don't get adrenaline from
applause. I don't get adrenaline from ooohhhs and aaahhhs. I get
adrenaline from placing myself in a position where I have to perform.
I like the sensation of speed, and I feel good about myself after
performing well (in my opinion). It's nice to get spectator appreciation
(especially if *I* wasn't content with my performance), but that's
definitely secondary.
Perhaps you did hook turns to impress people. I'm glad that you don't
do that anymore.
Will
Flyincamra
>You two ought to get maried..
Nah... it would never work.
Marc should marry someone who will train him to mow the lawn, take out the
garbage and say "Yes, Dear".
David is too busy hanging out at Spring Break in a trench coat to get married
at all.
;-P
Jan Devil
jkl
> >
> > jkl
>
> No, it wouldn't. It still implies something less than honorable
> intentions on her part. Near as I can tell, Jan was seeking input on an
> issue important to all of us. She was not simply stirring the pot as is
> implied by either of your terms of choice. So go back to your god damn
> laboratory and classroom, you've got nothing to contribute to our real
> world discussion.
>
> -Josh
Oh, will you just relax, already.
Troll, chum, fish; it's all the same thing, and Jan and the rest of the
world know I didn't imply ANYTHING less than honorable.
Jan surely knows me well enough to know exactly what I meant.
She intended to start this discussion and it's well deserved.
If you're an Elsinore jumper, please introduce yourself.
Otherwise, hook, carve, do whatever floats your boat;
just take responsibility for your own actions and
leave the rest of us alone.
That's my "nothing" contribution to you from my labratory,
where I have been deeply affected by Saturday's incident.
I'm glad that USPA has taken immediate action against the
person in question.
Remember: reckless endangerment IS a crime.
You're just seeing the beginning of where this whole thing is going.
jkl
Mark_Harju
problems. Please see the article on jump plane crashes in the May issue
of Parachutist.
--
Opinions expressed are not
necessarily those of the
Boeing Company. Please
remove "NO-SPAM" to
reply. Thanks!
David Ferree wrote:
>
> >From: jkl bas...@home.com
>
> >Some people seem to love that rush, even more so when they can do it in
> >front of the biggest audience. They must need to be the center of
> >attention so bad that they can't take that kind of action off to the
> >side. Well, it got everyone's attention.
>
> "Some" people? Oh, you mean the small 99.9% of all hook turners.... ok. Of
> course the hook turners will say they'd do it even if they were all alone (many
> of them have said it to me, and I used to say it to others). But have you ever
> noticed that when a DZ sets up a "hook turn area" like at Eloy where there are
> no spectators, nobody uses it?
>
> Of course it's about showing off. That's all it *is* about. So now what?
>
> David
David Ferree
>David is too busy hanging out at Spring Break in a trench coat to get married
>at all.
Hey, I never admitted to that.
Paul Quade
> Come on,, tell de truth,, either yew law enforcement or a deacon at de baptist
> church.
Little could be further than the truth than to imply I'm enforcement or
dogmatically religious.
Paul
David Ferree
> I get
>adrenaline from placing myself in a position where I have to perform.
>I like the sensation of speed, and I feel good about myself after
>performing well (in my opinion). It's nice to get spectator appreciation
>(especially if *I* wasn't content with my performance), but that's
>definitely secondary.
Uh huh. Ok.
Look, the reason I pointed out again why most people do hooks (knowing how bad
I'd get flamed for doing so) was to just put a little of the "anti" spin on it.
The more "pro" spin is put on doing swoop landings, the more people will do
them, and the more people will kill themselves and others.
You and Marc are doing a bang up job of making that seem like a good thing.
David
Brien K. Meehan
>
> It doesn't matter if you are driving a car or driving a parachute
recklessly,
> YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE!
(That's an "agree", right?)
Yes, you're not only responsible, but you can be held criminally liable.
Maybe a little jail time would make the point about how to land with
consideration for the safety of others.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Webmasters New RevShare Program http://www.uncensored-news.com/revshare.html
Will Packard
<snip>
> Uh huh. Ok.
>
> Look, the reason I pointed out again why most people do hooks (knowing how bad
> I'd get flamed for doing so) was to just put a little of the "anti" spin on it.
> The more "pro" spin is put on doing swoop landings, the more people will do
> them, and the more people will kill themselves and others.
>
> You and Marc are doing a bang up job of making that seem like a good thing.
>
> David
That certainly wasn't my intent, and I'm sure it wasn't Marc's either.
Regardless of your motivation, you made a false generalization which
some people found personally offensive.
I don't try to discourage people from doing hook turns. That wouldn't work.
I *do* try to encourage people to approach high performance landings
cautiously. Large boogies often have high performance landing seminars
by qualified people, and I encourage anyone interested to attend.
If a person does high performance landings (or skydives, skysurfs, etc.)
to impress other people, he/she is doing it for the wrong reason. Odds
are that this person is going to be hurt or killed in this pursuit.
I strongly encourage people to examine their motivation: "Am I
<insert activity here> to impress others? Why is that important to me?"
In my 13+ years in the sport, I've seen all kinds of people. I've certainly
seen my share of mildly neurotic people, who are more concerned about what
others think of them than what they think of themselves. If I can stimulate
someone to reflect on his/her motivation, perhaps I can have a positive
effect.
Will
Peanut4040
>Maybe a little jail time would make the point about how to land with
>consideration for the safety of others.
jail does no good to NOBODY.
I would not even recommend jail to cops!! hey wait a sec,, hehehe
Marc
>Look, the reason I pointed out again why most people do hooks (knowing how
>bad
>I'd get flamed for doing so) was to just put a little of the "anti" spin on
>it.
> The more "pro" spin is put on doing swoop landings, the more people will do
>them, and the more people will kill themselves and others.
First of all, I don't recall anybody on this thread trying to put any sort of
positive "spin" on high performance landings. I certainly wasn't. This is a
thread about *penalties* for people who screw up their landings, for Pete's
sake. Yeah, screwing up and injuring someone is *real* cool. That's some
great "pro swoop-landing spin" we've got going here. Uh huh, right.
Second of all, most people who are any good at performing high performance
landings are also big proponents of safe and responsible canopy flight. They
advocate proper training, experience, and responsibility. What problem do you
have with this positive "spin?"
>You and Marc are doing a bang up job of making that seem like a good thing.
Bullshit. All we're doing is rebutting your claim.
There are two separate issues here:
1) Your original claim that swoop landings are about nothing more than showing
off; and,
2) Your current (nonsensical) claims that you're just trying to add some
"anti-spin" because Will and I are advocating swoop landings and impliedly
contributing to future fatalities by doing so.
I can't speak for Will, but I'm responding to Number 1. I have no idea where
or how you came up with Number 2. I wasn't advocating that anyone go out and
try swoop landings. All I'M saying is that I don't do high performance
landings for the REASON that YOU CLAIMED (see Number 1). You made a statement
and applied it to us (or 99.9% of "us" anyway), and I'm rebutting your
inaccurate statement. That's all that's going on here.
Blue Skies,
Marc
David Laidlaw
condemning all current swoopers as unsafe?
IMO, some skydive because it is hard, and continue to skydive because they
enjoy that, with practice, they can get better. always get better. every jump,
you can fly smoother, turn faster, exit cleaner, dock more gently, get from a
to b quicker... etc. For some, skydives aren't over after deployment. A few
folks I know just use the canopy as a tool for a survivable landing. Most
like to make the most of that parachute time as well, high performance canopy
or not. They practice precision accuracy, for example.
Lots like to practice turf surfs. Just know that these really hot swoopers
you see have been learning those skills over thousands of jumps; and the ones
that survive know that they sometimes can't always do their best swoop; or any
swoop at all. You might not notice the difference, but they have to abort or
adjust all the time. That's what (IMO) Marc meant when he talked about the
croud liking a swoop "he" wasn't really proud of.. It's very hard to do a
swoop very clean and efficiently... and the pilot knows when he had to use a
touch of toggle to pull up when he shouldn't need to touch them at all, but
from the ground who will notice? The challenge is internal, it's hard, and it
is very satisfying to see yourself learning, and getting better, and doing
something that is hard. And a whole damn lot of fun.
But maybe you thought not bouncing was the only thing that made a successful
swoop? Looking like you were going to and then pulling it out at the last
second, so you had people on the ground screamin g and running? How may
attempts did you have before you took out the airplane? So now you won't swoop
at all.. your choice may be a good one... But for those that want to, they just
need to know that it takes years of practice and lots of currency to do it
safely... and that means knowing your limits and increasing the difficulty in
tiny baby steps... and having outs... never put yourself in a situation where
you can't abort and turn or swoop at any time for any reason, roll wings level
and go elsewhere...
david
sorry, wish the above made sense.
> very bad form to take out the airplane.
>
>Yeah, it happened. Was in my invicible period. Funny thing was, I felt even
>more invinicble after that.
CEST CHEEZ
Several of my friends at Elsinore visited Clem on Sunday. If you still need an
update, let me know.
Best,
Mandy
There is a principle which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance
--
that principal is contempt prior to investigation.
llj...@my-deja.com
Jan Meyer <Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com> wrote:
> Paul Quade wrote:
> >
> > I'm going to assume this is -really- about what happened on Saturday
over at
> > Elsinore.
> >
> > Am I right?
>
> You can be right.
> You can be dead right too.
> Now answer the questions.
>
> > Jan Meyer wrote:
> >
> > > remember that guy that took out the spectator at Eloy a few weeks
back??
> > >
> > > Suppose he came thru his collision unscathed.
> > > What would be a fair reprimand for his digression of jeopardizing
the
> > > safety of others?
> > >
> > > If a jumper with a history of *unsafe* approaches, repeatedly has
close
> > > calls and then one day nails someone big time, then what do we
do???
> > >
> > > Should a DZO ban the jumper?
> > > Should the rest of us, just say 'no I don't want to be in the same
> > > airspace as this jumper'?
>
> --
> Jan Meyer
> mailto:Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com
> http://www.MakeItHappen.com
> http://www.DiveMaker.com
> One would think if that person or any other have a history of unsafe
landing pratices and the dzo has done nothing about it, it's time to
look at why. Could $ be more important than the safety of others?
What if the dzo is the pilot? Should they get a "get out of jail" card?
Maybe all the concerned patrons should not jump there in protest for a
month and hurt the dz where it counts..in the pocket.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark_Harju
--
Opinions expressed are not
necessarily those of the
Boeing Company. Please
remove "NO-SPAM" to
reply. Thanks!
AerialFcs wrote:
>
> >Reckless endangerment is a felony in most jurisdictions
>
> It doesn't matter if you are driving a car or driving a parachute recklessly,
> YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE!
>
jkallend
> So this badly botched swoop YOU made (trying to impress?) is the reason you are
> condemning all current swoopers as unsafe?
>
SNIP
How about getting back to the point about taking out a spectator?
Is swooping a designated spectator area (as opposed to a designated
landing area) done for the fun of the skydiver, or to show off?
jk
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
David Laidlaw
there is no excuse for taking out a spectator, airplane, another jumper,
yourself, etc...
and no one should force a landing that creates a hazard, esp. just to "show
off".
Of course, this doesn't mean banish all swoopers to the other side of the
airfield. Maybe just the ones with blinders on. I've seen people crash
low-performance canopies into spectators, too. (and cut off other jumpers
blindly spiraling down over the landing area).
david
jkallend
> In article <39172A30...@MakeItHappen.com>,
> Jan Meyer <Aeroso...@MakeItHappen.com> wrote:
> > Paul Quade wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm going to assume this is -really- about what happened on Saturday
> over at
> > > Elsinore.
> > >
> > > Am I right?
> >
>
What did happen at Elsinore, anyway?
Josh
>
> So you were practicing your swoops so you could get better at it
> before showing off, and that's part of your argument that you don't do
> it to show off? I think you missed the point of my comment.
<sarcasm on> Yeah, that's exactly what I said! <sarcasm off>
Your polemics don't deserve further comment. Marc has already elaborated
on why and how one can enjoy a swoop without being motivated by showing
off.
> Maybe
> it's the term "show off" that has you. I never said it was a bad
> thing. Not knowing or admitting to how your own mind works, not a bad
> thing either; at least not for 99.9% of the population.
Come on David, I thought you and I got all the insults out of our system
a few years ago. I understand my motivations and those of others quite
well. I simply acknowledged that "showing off" is *a* factor that
effects how people fly their canopies. You had basically asserted that
it was the *only* factor, which is patently absurd, no matter how hard
you stomp your feet and say "it is so!"
For me, showing off is pretty low on the priority list, well below
landing safely, keeping my head on a swivel and monitoring canopy and
ground traffic. Which is why the probability of me swooping is inversely
proportional to the number of people around. If conditions are such that
I can hook it (responsibly) and have an audience, I enjoy it. So what?
-Josh
Peanut4040
>on why and how one can enjoy a swoop without being motivated by showing
>off.
SWOOP NAKED,
YEW GO MARK!!!
YEW GO BOYY
SWOOOP DAR HE ISSSS
SWOOOP DAR HE ISSS
Josh
> Oh, will you just relax, already.
> Troll, chum, fish; it's all the same thing, and Jan and the rest of the
> world know I didn't imply ANYTHING less than honorable.
> Jan surely knows me well enough to know exactly what I meant.
> She intended to start this discussion and it's well deserved.
I fear there's been a misunderstanding that is completely my fault:
I thought you were Professor (hence the lab/classroom reference) John
Kallend posting from a different e-mail account. He signs his posts
"jk".
Anyway, while I do think the term "troll" typically has some negative
connotations, I only brought it up because I thought John K. wouldn't
mind discussing semantics. I didn't intend to offend anyone, or shift
the focus of this thread away from the main issues at hand.
Sorry for the confusion.
>
> If you're an Elsinore jumper, please introduce yourself.
> Otherwise, hook, carve, do whatever floats your boat;
> just take responsibility for your own actions and
> leave the rest of us alone.
I've heard great things about Elsinore, and agree with that we should
all take responsibility for our own actions. I hope to visit someday.
> That's my "nothing" contribution to you from my labratory,
> where I have been deeply affected by Saturday's incident.
I am very sorry to hear about the incident (I only know that something
happened, I have no specifics), and hope that everyone is able to make a
full recovery.
-Josh
David Ferree
>If I can stimulate
>someone to reflect on his/her motivation, perhaps I can have a positive
>effect.
Oh the irony of it all.
KATHEEJ58
>> >
>> > jkl
>>
>> No, it wouldn't. It still implies something less than honorable
>> intentions on her part. Near as I can tell, Jan was seeking input on an
>> issue important to all of us. She was not simply stirring the pot as is
>> implied by either of your terms of choice. So go back to your god damn
>> laboratory and classroom, you've got nothing to contribute to our real
>> world discussion.
>>
>> That is a troll, see the difference? ;)
>> -Josh
>
>
>Troll, chum, fish; it's all the same thing, and Jan and the rest of the
>world know I didn't imply ANYTHING less than honorable.
>Jan surely knows me well enough to know exactly what I meant.
>She intended to start this discussion and it's well deserved.
>
>Otherwise, hook, carve, do whatever floats your boat;
>just take responsibility for your own actions and
>leave the rest of us alone.
>
>where I have been deeply affected by Saturday's incident.
>person in question.
>
>Remember: reckless endangerment IS a crime.
>You're just seeing the beginning of where this whole thing is going.
>
>
>jkl
>
Being wreckless is a crime, however, that does not describe the event that took
place in Elsinore in anyway. That was an accident pure and simple and we all
need to learn from it.
jkl
.........
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
No harm, no foul.
> I've heard great things about Elsinore, and agree with that we should
> all take responsibility for our own actions. I hope to visit someday.
>
I hope you do. You will always be welcome there
(provided you don't take anyone out :-)
>
> I am very sorry to hear about the incident (I only know that something
> happened, I have no specifics), and hope that everyone is able to make a
> full recovery.
> -Josh
Thanks for your kind thoughts.
They're greatly appreciated.
jkl
David Ferree
>First of all, I don't recall anybody on this thread trying to put any sort of
>positive "spin" on high performance landings.
You gotta be kidding. You did it yourself when you were talking about why you
like it.
>Yeah, screwing up and injuring someone is *real* cool. That's some
>great "pro swoop-landing spin" we've got going here. Uh huh, right.
Marc, I know it's hard, being a lawyer and all, but try to remember when truth
was intrinsically valuable and not just a tool best used when bent.
>Second of all, most people who are any good at performing high performance
>landings are also big proponents of safe and responsible canopy flight.
That's a good one. How about trying "Most people who are any good at gambling
are big proponents of not gambling."
>They
>advocate proper training, experience, and responsibility. What problem do
>you
>have with this positive "spin?"
Objection. Begging the question, again. Remember... truth.. value. Or
should I ask you when you stopped beating up your mother? Huh? When? :-)
>>You and Marc are doing a bang up job of making that seem like a good thing.
>
>Bullshit. All we're doing is rebutting your claim.
No, you're not, except to those people who are unaware enough to buy your
"rebuttal." Most likely the same ones who will be breaking their legs sometime
soon.
Don't worry about it.
David
David Ferree
>I understand my motivations and those of others quite
>well.
So you say, and so say I. Which viewpoint, yours or mine, do you suppose is
evidenced more clearly by what happens at the DZ? Hmm?
>I can hook it (responsibly) and have an audience, I enjoy it. So what?
Don't look now, but that's what I said in the first place. :-)
David
Marc
>Being wreckless is a crime,
No it ain't. Wreckless means "without wrecks." Sounds good to me.
"Reckless," on the other hand....ain't the English language pretty darn weird
sometimes?
>however, that does not describe the event that took place in Elsinore in
anyway. That was an accident pure and simple
Ooooo, now we've got conflicting stories.
>and we all need to learn from it.
Agreed.
Blue Skies,
Marc
David Laidlaw
"rebuttal." Most likely the same ones who will be breaking their legs sometime
soon.
Don't worry about it.
------------
Geeze.. You sound like a whuffo who thinks ALL skydivers will eventually go
in--our a skydiver with a similar attitude to base jumpers.
Look, people need to be responsible, no matter what or how they fly.. you
decided (if I have it straight) not to risk anymore swoop landings after taking
out an airplane. Maybe you should have realized you were in over your head
before you did that. That doesn't mean their are others who can't do these
things safely, just because you couldn't.
David Ferree
>So this badly botched swoop YOU made (trying to impress?) is the reason you
>are
>condemning all current swoopers as unsafe?
No. Any more stupid questions?
(snip a whole lot of crap)
>sorry, wish the above made sense.
Me too.
Expert swoopers and novices alike will break their legs and kill themselves
this year. If you/they want to do it, fine by me. If you want to say it's not
for the accolades, fine by me too. So now what?
David
Jan Meyer
snip
> Look, people need to be responsible, no matter what or how they fly.. you
> decided (if I have it straight) not to risk anymore swoop landings after taking
> out an airplane. Maybe you should have realized you were in over your head
> before you did that. That doesn't mean their are others who can't do these
> things safely, just because you couldn't.
Just how does one take out a plane safely?
(Aren't pronouns wonderful?)
David Ferree
>you
>decided (if I have it straight) not to risk anymore swoop landings after
>taking
>out an airplane.
No, you don't have it right or anywhere close to it, but that's ok., I'm
getting used to it.
>That doesn't mean their are others who can't do these
>things safely, just because you couldn't.
Oh, but I could. Just like everyone else.
Marc
>Marc-who-thinks-only-he-has-a-mind wrote:
>
>>First of all, I don't recall anybody on this thread trying to put any sort
>of
>>positive "spin" on high performance landings.
>
>You gotta be kidding.
No, I am not.
>You did it yourself when you were talking about why you like it.
No, I did not. Your use of the word "spin" has a negative connotation here,
like I'm trying to sell people on the idea of doing high performance landings.
That is not the case. I merely *explained* why your original statement did not
apply to me. I wasn't putting a "spin" on anything.
>>Yeah, screwing up and injuring someone is *real* cool. That's some
>>great "pro swoop-landing spin" we've got going here. Uh huh, right.
>
>Marc, I know it's hard, being a lawyer and all, but try to remember when
>truth
>was intrinsically valuable and not just a tool best used when bent.
David, I know it's hard, but try to understand that there is a difference
between explaining a position with factual statements (as I did) and "spinning"
the facts in a manner likely to induce others into thinking "Sounds cool, I'm
gonna try hook turns!" (as you imply that I did).
>>Second of all, most people who are any good at performing high performance
>>landings are also big proponents of safe and responsible canopy flight.
>
>That's a good one. How about trying "Most people who are any good at
>gambling
>are big proponents of not gambling."
Your comparison fails. A more accurate comparison would be something like:
"Most people who are any good at gambling are big proponents of being
well-versed in the rules and sticking to pre-set limits."
[snip]
>>>You and Marc are doing a bang up job of making that seem like a good thing.
>>
>>Bullshit. All we're doing is rebutting your claim.
>
>No, you're not, except to those people who are unaware enough to buy your
>"rebuttal." Most likely the same ones who will be breaking their legs
>sometime
>soon.
You're the one who appears to be unaware of the differences between a
straightforward rebuttal and a "spin." Nowhere did I praise the virtues of
high performance landings. Nowhere did I advise anyone to do them. All I did
was explain that I do *not* do them for the reason YOU claim I do. That's it.
How and why you've attempted to take my explanation and recharacterize it as a
"spin" that is going to dupe people into "breaking their legs" is beyond me.
It's absurd.
>Don't worry about it.
You started it, and now you tell me to "not worry about it." Right. ;-P
Marc
>> Josh said:
>>I can hook it (responsibly) and have an audience, I enjoy it. So what?
>
>Don't look now, but that's what I said in the first place. :-)
No, that is most emphatically *not* what you said David.
To paraphrase, you said that showing off for the crowd was the *only* reason
for high performance landings. Josh did *not* say that the audience was the
*only* reason he does high performance landings -- and his previous posts
indicate that that is *not* the case. You're the one bending the truth here
David. You're the one offering up "spin."
Marc
>>From: dlsk...@aol.com
>
>>you
>>decided (if I have it straight) not to risk anymore swoop landings after
>>taking
>>out an airplane.
>
>No, you don't have it right or anywhere close to it, but that's ok., I'm
>getting used to it.
He hasn't been around the newsgroup long enough to know your story, and perhaps
he doesn't watch "Real TV."
>>That doesn't mean their are others who can't do these
>>things safely, just because you couldn't.
>Oh, but I could. Just like everyone else.
Speaking of which, your canopy collapsed when you were flying a straight-in
approach, right? Your frap had nothing to do with a botched high performance
landing, did it?
David Laidlaw
>this year.
Probably.
> If you/they want to do it, fine by me. If you want to say it's
>not
>for the accolades, fine by me too. So now what?
>David (Ferrree)
Nothing. I'm done. Sorry I even said anything.
Marc
>>From: dlsk...@aol.com
>
>>So this badly botched swoop YOU made (trying to impress?) is the reason you
>>are
>>condemning all current swoopers as unsafe?
>
>No. Any more stupid questions?
If he isn't familiar with your story then what he asked was a reasonable
question -- not a stupid one.
>(snip a whole lot of crap)
>
>>sorry, wish the above made sense.
>
>Me too.
It did make sense based upon what he probably knows.
>Expert swoopers and novices alike will break their legs and kill themselves
>this year.
And the incident reports for many of those novices will likely read "The
deceased had a reputation for being a conservative jumper, and was not known
for performing low turns."
NOT knowing how to turn low kills people too, ya know.....
> If you/they want to do it, fine by me.
Thank goodness, I've been waiting for your permission.
>If you want to say it's not for the accolades, fine by me too.
Your original statement was that it was *only* for the accolades. It seems
that you have seen fit to backpedal from that position, which is wise.
> So now what?
A better question might be: So what?
David Ferree
>Speaking of which, your canopy collapsed when you were flying a straight-in
>approach, right? Your frap had nothing to do with a botched high performance
>landing, did it?
Correct. It's still what got me to stop doing hooks though, since it rendered
me unable to run and made me very aware of how hard the ground is. Kind of put
a less than invincible spin on my own attitude.
David Ferree
>>>I can hook it (responsibly) and have an audience, I enjoy it. So what?
>>
>>Don't look now, but that's what I said in the first place. :-)
>
>No, that is most emphatically *not* what you said David.
I think it was, in that (whoever) said they enjoyed hooking in front of an
audience and 'so what' was what I said. No bending involved, just reasonable
extrapolation.
David Ferree
>How and why you've attempted to take my explanation and recharacterize it as
>a
>"spin" that is going to dupe people into "breaking their legs" is beyond me.
Obviously.
>You started it, and now you tell me to "not worry about it." Right. ;-P
Right. You are juth *tho* thenthitive!
David Ferree
>Your original statement was that it was *only* for the accolades. It seems
>that you have seen fit to backpedal from that position, which is wise.
No, not at all. I still say that's what it's all about. Who's theory gets
proven at the DZ? Hmm? But there goes that truth vs. spin problem again, eh?
>A better question might be: So what?
Then what?
Marc
>>>>I can hook it (responsibly) and have an audience, I enjoy it. So what?
>>>
>>>Don't look now, but that's what I said in the first place. :-)
>>
>>No, that is most emphatically *not* what you said David.
>
>I think it was,
It wasn't.
in that (whoever) said they enjoyed hooking in front of an
>audience and 'so what' was what I said. No bending involved, just reasonable
>extrapolation.
You said that impressing the crowd was *all* high performance landings were
about. Josh, Will, and myself have all taken issue with that statement. Check
Deja.
David Ferree
>>>No, that is most emphatically *not* what you said David.
>>
>>I think it was,
>
>It wasn't.
>
Was too.