Deaths at a California skydiving center, but the jumps go on
sfgate.com
sfgate.com
Amazing how a business can just decide to not pay a fine to the FAA, and apparently it's all cool. If I missed $200 on my income taxes, the IRS would be up my ass within a year for it, but apparently the FAA doesn't urgently need that $1M.
EDIT: It keeps getting better!
> Turner’s parents filed a wrongful death suit against both Dause and the Parachute Center; three years later, a judge awarded the family a $40 million judgment, writing in the decision that Dause was personally responsible for the payment. Francine Turner told SFGATE the family has never received any payments from Dause or the Parachute Center.
So he doesn't have to pay judgments either? I need to learn this guy's amazing financial life-hack!
It's long past time to stop letting rich people manipulate the legal system to get away with their criminality.
That seems to be the key. If I, as a peon, owed child support or something, the government has many ways to squeeze that pittance out of me, including asset seizure and wage garnishment. But if instead I was a millionaire business owner owing $millions, I can just... not pay it. Have my lawyer whisper some arcane incantation to a judge, and suddenly the government is all "Oh, woe is me! How can we possibly get this money??" Two different systems, folks.
I don't mean legal systems, I mean financial systems.
Most people live in a world where they have to own something to have it. They buy a house to live in, a car to drive and so on. The law can decide you owe something so they take an asset that you own.
But people with wealth don't generally live like this. They structure their financial lives to separate value from risk. They control wealth, they use wealth, but they don't "own" it.
Joe Public and the media are bad at understanding this distinction. They equate wealth with ownership. The law understands it though, so Joe Public doesn't understand the law.
The solution here is not to rail against the system. The solution is to understand it, leverage it, educate and be educated. There are legal structures that exist to protect assets. Yes, you need to reach some level of success to make use of them, but lots of people reach that level and don't use them, thus exposing unnecessary risk to those assets. If you "own" a business of any size, you should get educated on this.
Truer words were never spoken! The system exists, take advantage of it. Of course, when you do, don't tell anyone or you'll be accused of being "an asshole who is taking advantage of loopholes in the system" by those who don't understand that it isn't a loophole, it is the system!
So the idea of "stop being poor" is not in play. This doesn't make you rich, it is the reduction of risk that comes with being "rich". (For some definition of rich).
Secondly it's not "taking advantage" in a pejorative sense. It doesn't make other people poorer. It protects assets from creditors. Specifically assets that are not designated as collateral for specific credit.
It's better to think about this like insurance. You pay something to reduce risk. Taking out insurance isn't an affront to poor people, or a sign of excess capital.
Your comment though is a common reaction. There's this notion that making use of financial structures hurts the little guy. Or makes people poor. It does neither. Rather, I would consider that those who should use it, but don't, are either uneducated, or lazy, or irresponsible, or some combination of all 3. The education part can be fixed.
Clearly, just like insurance, to use it or not is a choice. Everyone is free to make their own choices, and determine their appetite for risk. Unfortunately financial management is not taught at school, and those who never learn it tend to be those who also "end up with nothing."
Maybe not by itself. But by reducing risk, it also reduces accountability which allows people to take advantage of people in other, often illegal or unlawful ways, without any meaningful consequences when they get caught.
In the OP, the owner of the business has caused multiple deaths through negligence, but at least from the contents of that article there hasn't been any meaningful consequence.
Is the above also an argument against insurance? If not, why not?
Yes, "hiding your money" might seem like it reduces accountability, but the law has a solution to that (called prison).
Yes, as we all well know the law is imperfect, and administered by imperfect people.
None of this removes the legitimate value people get from using financial tools properly. Just because cars are used as getaway vehicles doesn't mean we should ban cars.
By making those creditors poorer?
I should point out that I've had creditors all my life. Landlords, Employees, Banks, Suppliers and so on. I've never stiffed any of them. Perhaps tat's because I remain in control of my own finances, and don't allow them to interfere in the business.
If you feel that protecting your creditors is in your personal interest, then by all means go for it.
Yes, I think there are people who ascribe negative connotations to making use of financial systems. Where I've encountered them, for the most part, they tend to be less-wealthy folk looking for some external reason for their perceived lack of success. To be honest I don't really care what they think.
I do care somewhat about making people's lives better, and some of that "better" means less risky. Having insurance doesn't make you a bad driver. Structuring your finances well doesn't make other people poor, and doesn't make you somehow riskier.
Yes there are those who infer that, and that's fine. I'm not spending my retirement worrying about folk who didn't agree with my life choices. I'll spend it spending the assets I have left.
There are plenty of rich people who are happy to keep everything in their own name, and just live with the risk. Most of those people turn out OK.
Some percentage make the news everyday as having "lost everything". Keeping everything together mean's it all stands and falls together. A bad decision in your business means the loss of your house.
So no, I'm not saying people who disagree with me are poor. I'm saying that rich people who disagree with me have a higher appetite for risk than I do. I'll work for 40 years, I'm not prepared to lose all that accumulation in year 39. Good structures remove that risk, which is something I'm happy to pay for.
Of course this hinges on your definition of rich. Perhaps you think a billion makes you rich. Or perhaps a million. Or perhaps 20k. It doesn't really matter. Whatever you have you can decide if you can afford to lose it all, or not.
Of course by the time you have a million you have a financial advisor, who will be advocating for the same risk reduction. Which is why this approach may seem tainted to you. I'll never have a million, which is why I'm not going to risk what I do accumulate, losing it would be painful.
"Yes, I think there are people who ascribe negative connotations to making use of financial systems. Where I've encountered them, for the most part, they tend to be less-wealthy folk looking for some external reason for their perceived lack of success. To be honest I don't really care what they think."
You literally said that if you think the financial system is unfair you're probably poor, and you don't care what they think.
The financial system is certainly unfair. Life is unfair, from the moment you are born to the moment you die. This has nothing to do with "fairness". This has to do with personal financial management. There are rules to the game. Use them, don't use them, it's completely up to you.
If you want to change the rules to make them more fair, then by all means go for it. I'm not sure that any system you divide will ultimately be fair since it has to operate in an unfair world. The current system protects wealth at pretty much any scale. You are welcome to leave your wealth unprotected if you choose. That's your right.
I was the child of a single mother who didn't have a high school diploma. Somehow I managed to graduate high school without falling into crime as did so many of my classmates. Somehow I managed to get through college, barely able to pay for it and always wondering if this was the semester we wouldn't have enough money for what scholarships and loans/grants wouldn't cover. And yes, I willingly acknowledge that it was much easier to do that 30 years ago. The cost of education these days is nothing short of criminal.
But then I got into the workplace and I was surrounded by people who did nothing but make excuses for where they were in life.
I knew nothing about money other than I should have a bank account and save. So I got books and learned how to invest, how money worked to make more money, that there were better options than savings accounts, that I was better off buying a reliable used car instead of the most expensive thing I could afford, etc. I learned that by starting a simple Sole Proprietorship business, I could essentially be paid to learn because my business expenses would be tax deductible and I could make a little cash on the side.
I learned about systems and how to use them to my advantage. I also learned to keep my mouth shut because although anyone could learn the same things that I did, people would rather bitch about how everything is stacked against them and they could never get ahead.
<rant off>
Through your own efforts and experience you have acquired a useful block of knowledge. I encourage you to share it in cases where that knowledge can make a difference to someone else.
But yeah, in the wrong context it can hurt more than help.
"Ooh wow, I better understand how the system is specifically structured to grant inherit privileges to those with wealth, now I feel... ???"
Navigating these systems takes an education you can get for free, and a few hundred $ a year. Obviously there are lots of people who are not wealthy, for whom there is no risk and hence no need to reduce risk.
Getting educated about asset protection is not bad to do before you acquire assets. Just like the legal structures and implications for marriage are best learned before, not after, getting married.
You don't need to be wealthy to be educated on the topic. Those that plan to get wealthy might find it beneficial to learn about this before they "lose it all". Lots of people learn how the world works "the hard way". I'd prefer you didn't.
Naturally those with unprotected assets are also the juiciest prey for those who thrive on the misfortune of others.
I have (by my stnadards) a high NW, much of which is non-retirement accounts, but some of that is due to my having virtually zero non-monetary assets to my name. I guess I'm curious what I should be looking out for, if and when I pick a place to settle and purchase something.
I guess at the very least, this is something of a reminder that I should be purchasing decent traveler's insurance, especially in lieu of an American rent.
BTW, I appreciate you engaging me kindly, when I had somewhat glib replies earlier.
Or maybe a better question, where's the "oops I have a pile of money, now what" literature I should read?
For me, the goal is to separate assets from liabilities. I own a business and that business has creditors, some of whom require me to be personally liable.
So any asset I own is "at risk". I'm not expecting a problem, but life happens sometimes.
If I have a house a creditor can force the business into bankruptcy, and my house can be lost. If the house is not in my name (say its in a trust, or perhaps my spouses name) then it's not "mine to give". In simple terms if I hold liabilities and my wife holds assets, (and we have a suitable marriage contract) then creditors can't take those assets.
Obviously making creditors whole is the goal, but that can be done well, or badly, depending on your juciness.
Everyone's situation is different. The legal framework is different in different places. Which us why you need an advisor in your country / state to assess your risks, and possible mitigations. Don't just take advice from the Internet, or even your buddies. You need to understand your goals and needs.
Trusts can be an important part of the equation, so that's sometimes a good starting point to evaluate advisors. Even if you don't need a trust you want to feel like the advisor understands them etc.
However why would I give such a company credit unless it’s assets outstrip its liabilities?
Banks (and other financial institutions) make loans all the time that are not necessarily backed with collateral. This is reflected in the interest rate that you pay.
YOU decide whether to risk your house or not. If you do do it, then at least you're doing it intentionally and not by accident.
Of course bank loans are the tip of the iceberg. Lots of creditors want personal sureties, not just on your loans but others too. Most of those sureties contain language like "all present AND FUTURE" debts. You got divorced 30 years ago? They don't care.
(complex, basically impenetrable systems that also can effectively shelter large sums of money and eliminate huge swaths of tax liability usually cost around 5-10k a year or so to maintain),
These systems of ownership/control protects these assets from risks such as personal or business liability, divorce court, bankruptcy, etc and at the more sophisticated levels can create cash sinks to eliminate vast swaths of tax exposure while tucking cash and other fungibles away in effectively untouchable zero-tax jurisdictions.
This is a system quietly utilised by virtually every international corporation as well as the vast majority of people with significant wealth. It is gravely underutilised by people of modest wealth. A trust provides very strong protection for multiple assets for less than 30 euros a month in many cases.
It’s worth noting the obvious, that one entity can hold many assets so that the cost is spread over your entire risk position.
You should speak to a financial advisor and also look into ways to charge off surplus cash reserves offshore if possible, though it’s possibly too late to do this in an ideal way to reduce your tax exposure.
The goal for fungibles is to move your profit centres offshore to better tax jurisdictions, and although this sounds complex, it’s not really that difficult.
An offshore can hold your IP, and your local can lease that IP from the offshore, absorbing the majority of your revenue, for example. Or you can set up a private insurance company so that all insurance costs go offshore. Offshore private retirement funds are a thing.
Offshore companies can hold assets that you then lease from them, such as real estate, vehicles, boats, planes, etc. They can be very profitable, tucking those profits away in tax-favourable jurisdictions while absorbing large chunks of discretionary revenue from your operations in less tax-favorable situations.
All of these can have tax advantages for avoiding taxes you don’t need to owe, and most of them create very very deep legal moats around the assets that you seek to benefit from.
The mechanisms for relinquishing legal ownership and direct control (therefore liability and vulnerability) while retaining the use and benefit from your assets are sophisticated and well established.
There are a lot of things that people do in society which I've declined to do as well because I feel that they're wrong but I've come to realize the way to make people stop doing those things is to just do them in a really oafish way so that the public sees how bad they are and hopefully they'll fix it.
However it should be noted that the use of on-shore trusts to separate assets from risks and liabilities does not intrinsically have either a tax-saving goal, or a tax-saving effect (depending on your jurisdiction.)
Personally I make use of asset-protection structures, but in an on-shore context. I live here, I enjoy benefits here, and I'm happy to pay my share of taxes here.
My point is that offshore trust structures, and onshore trust structures (among other options) have very different use cases, tax implications, and costs. Use of one does not imply use of the other.
(Also as I said elsewhere in some states - Texas - they can't seize your home anyway, excepting stuff like mortgages)
There are a variety of potential benefits (tax, inheritance, legal liability, etc) but one that shouldn't be underestimated is how much it can simplify the paperwork, process and delay at death vs just having a will. If you are elderly and have kids, creating a proper trust in sync with your will is one of the nicest things you can do for your kids. Having recently been through the death of a couple of parents, one who left a well-organized trust and the other who just had a standard will, the difference in work required and stress involved was night and day.
Just accepting the system and abusing it is not going to make the world a better place. This is why other commenters are upset, as you blatantly abuse immoral structures.
But if you feel that you can dismantle the system, then by all means go for it.
Personally I don't want to dismantle the system as it allows me to better manage risk.
Because the rich like them.
> Losing my life's accumulation at age 60 to a greedy or unscrupulous character is not a risk I personally want to take.
So why is the answer "allow people to avoid their liabilities" instead of "don't give people liability to greedy or unscrupulous characters"?
> Personally I don't want to dismantle the system as it allows me to better manage risk.
Personally I don't want to dismantle the system as it favors me*
Because smart people like them. Those smart people use them to protect their own wealth, and often end up as advisors to rich people. They certainly work for rich people, yes, but they also work for average people who have accumulated enough that they want to reduce the risk of losing it.
>> So why is the answer "allow people to avoid their liabilities"
That's a somewhat inaccurate characterization of what they do. Firstly, liabilities don't exist in a vacuum. They exist because a creditor agrees to extend you credit under specific terms and conditions. That credit entails risk to the creditor, which they allow for, and charge an interest rate to cover. They go into this understanding the parameters of the loan, and the risks / rewards in making it.
Financial structures allow you to limit the boundaries of that transaction. They allow you to decide what is "in" and what is "out" of the transaction.
By contrast lumping all your assets and liabilities together makes you a juicy target for aforementioned unscrupulous characters.
>> instead of "don't give people liability to greedy or unscrupulous characters"?
Because you cannot control this.
If you have a bank loan, of any kind, you already breaking this rule. Banks are some of the worst offenders when it comes to bad creditor behavior. If you rent a building or premise from someone, and that someone sells to a new person, well, congratulations that new person just entered your personal or business life.
>> Personally I don't want to dismantle the system as it favors me*
Absolutely. Banks and corporations already have the deck stacked well in their favor. I'm a big fan of any part of the system that protects me from their predatory clutches.
How does this relate to the actual article here, where somebody dies, a court determined that person X was personally responsible, and person X may or may not (we don't know) be using a trust, corporation, or other paper entity to shield himself from having to pay what he owes?
If that's just "the system" then we are saying the system is wrong. You're saying "smart people" use this system, and we are saying those smart people are the unscrupulous ones, taking advantage of the letter of the law to dodge what they owe. You shouldn't be able to use a structure of paperwork to avoid paying a judgment or fine that stems from wrongdoing. The corporate veil should be much more pierce-able than it apparently is.
Or Joe Public believes the law is wrong and understand (correctly) that the relevant metric is practical wealth rather than whether or not some fictional entity theoretically owns it.
For child support it's usually contempt of court which implies jail time.
That's usually how debts (civil matters) turn into criminal problems.
Just here a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39815731
But if you're very rich and owe tens or hundreds of millions, you can just ignore it and move on.
Our government prints money as if it is nothing. The stupendous sums beings sent overseas but if it gets to domestic expenditure they ("our representatives") get all contentious and start counting pennies. Another manifestation of the system.
The system requires an underclass. It is that simple.
Most of the money "sent overseas" is actually spent locally (US "foreign aid" spent in US; Japanese "foreign aid" spent in Japan, etc).
For example, Ukraine is getting shells pulled from inventory (like giving the older, almost expired cans from your pantry to the food kitchen). The "Ukraine" money the WH and Senate want to spend will be spent on replentishment and building up capacity because the US has lost its capacity to rapidly build up production, and is worried about needing to fight another war.
A lot of food aid is actually sending surplus overseas to keep agricultural output high. Farm subsidies are a huge welfare plan to wealthy farmers (not poor ones) but the federal government doesn't want to risk a food shortage, so they support overproduction and send some of it overseas because there isn't enough local demand or much less foreign demand from rich trading partners.
In regards to collecting, if a business is still open and collecting revenue, it’s a fairly easy target for collecting _something_. Whether a full $40 million judgement on a person/company can be collected is a different beast. There is a tremendous incentive to throw lots of billable hours at lawyers to appeal, or lots of billable hours to financial advisors to hide assets (shell companies, offshore jurisdictions, family members, fake identities, hard currency / commodities, etc). There is some evidence that AJones has done some of this (and that the Trump company at the heart of the NY fraud case has tried to migrate to FL and send assets to other entities).
The challenge is a lot of sketchy folks will ensure they hold very little directly themselves, which complicates things.
I mean, the IRS would... write you some sternly worded letters. They might call you on the phone. What else do you think would happen? Can you find an example of anyone who just ignored the IRS's letters over a $200 bill and something happened to them?
Society largely depends on people doing what they're told. Being a sociopath and just refusing to do what government agencies tell you to is a life-hack, of sorts. Just look at (some of) our billionaire class.
California recently recalculated my returns and required about $20k from the last 5 years.
I love the new phrases I pick up around here. That one is both superb, and a doozie.
I have ADHD and suck at doing important things, so I uh, never got around to paying that owed tax. A few years later I get a letter in the mail saying "Because you owe back taxes, the IRS is claiming your state tax return". Because it's a small amount, they did that two years. The back taxes are now paid off, and the IRS has not contacted me since, and I am under the impression they are satisfied with the situation.
The IRS does nothing unless you fragrantly and willfully attempt to defraud them. Mistakes are not something they give a shit about. They will send you a letter that explains what they believe you owe them, and if you do not dispute that situation, they will claim tax returns and other sources they have easy access to pay it off. Garnishing wages is not easy to do and they would likely not do it for small amounts.
I'm so tired of the right wing "if you mess up your tax form the IRS will arrest you!" BS. It's just fear tactics to continue to disassemble the IRS so that they cannot stop large corporations from straight up lying to the IRS.
Not that watching the safety video would have helped in this case, as the instructor was not properly trained and vetted in the first place.
Still, it shows the careless attitude of the business, and the skewed priorities of profit over people.
The same probably can't be said for most skydivers (I assume most are first timers ticking off a bucket list item.)
Most people are not professional ship drivers, and so big ships are much harder to recognize as "bad" just by looking at it.
And the entire world is filled with "required, but ignored" waivers and such, and people just kind of "do what the professionals are saying."
The point isn't about if you think something is dangerous, but how dangerous it is. There are a bunch of near accidents and minor accidents because people fail to realize their limitations and the vehicle dynamics. I constantly see people texting, tailgating, and not understanding the law (right of way isuses). Many people are wildly overconfident, showing they don't really know the risks and engage in risky behavior that they aren't even aware of.
Also, drivers know all about near misses. Their propensity to near miss is based off their knowledge that major accidents are quiet infrequent for most drivers (most will never be in a life-threatening crash, and minor crashes are a "once in several years" occassion for most drivers.)
Yet stereotypes are exactly what you're talking about when it comes to anecdotal evidence in your prior comment. Most people don't think about the what ifs, or possible outcomes. They're making stereotypes based on the experiences they do have. Stuff like how dangerous driving in the snow is if your a southerner or a northerner.
"Also, drivers know all about near misses."
I've seen some rather oblivious drivers who didn't realize how close they came to injury or death. The statistics for either activity isn't particularly helpful because individual scenarios can be wildy different.
"Personal experience aren't stereotypes."
How do you think stereotypes start? It's personal experience coupled with group think. A perfect example is how people think nice sunny days are safer for driving. Yet in reality they are risky because people pay less attention and drive faster than in the rain. So yes, there are common stereotypes of the safety of various conditions.
This is why we have vehicle safety regulations.
The regulations don't matter if people don't know them or choose not to follow them.
The UK driving test takes more than twice as long and involves way more maneuvers - though it looks like they've dropped three point turns and reversing left around a corner according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_driving_test#Ma...
Unless they're providing skydiving to young children or the severely mentally disabled - which as I understand things, they aren't.
At least 10-25% of drivers I see in the road are constantly on their phone. So it’s definitely not enforced enough to deter that.
Additionally, enforcement is extremely weak, and even with these lesser penalties, police will do everything they can to avoid dealing them out, even when they apply.
It would be ridiculous if we locked up the people who happened to kill others while not driving particularly dangerously. Justice is not being served by locking up the unfortunate unlucky sods while everyone else is engaging in the exact same risky behavior. It's why cops are unlikely to go after someone who say killed someone while speeding a not crazy amount; the thousands of drivers that go by every other day are doing the same thing. But they will throw the book at the statistical outliers of dangerous driving.
But if those folks couldn’t drive in the US with the way things are currently setup socioeconomically, everyone would have a huge problem.
And it usually isn’t that big of a deal - or at least emotionally doesn’t feel like an unreasonable risk, which is all society cares about.
There's obv something wrong at the The Lodi Parachute Center, but bars onsite to the remaining private airports are common. eg Lake Paris. "We did not witness the pilot consuming alcohol" is an insinuation, indicating a lack of supporting facts.
https://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/
These are a blip. I don't see the reason for outrage. Take risks and sometimes it doesn't work out. I rather the govt spend resources somewhere else.
It's interesting you focus on the alcohol claim but not any of the accusations mentioned in the article that would have gotten people killed.
I am a certified FAA Rigger, 1500 jumps, used to be an AFF Instructor.
(I will make this my default Yelp review for local restaurants...)
1500 jumps in 5 years (not that much), 1 reserve ride, one twisted ankle in early 100 jumps.
I'm not so sure about that. I knew the statistics, and I paid full attention in the pre-jump class. A colleague of mine who went with us did not pay attention and shattered one leg from the ankle to the hip. Fortunately, he made a full recovery.
I don't know why any intelligent person would regard jumping out of an airplane as "safe".
The rules are written in blood, and lack of compliance tends to be self regulating.
They provide insurance in exchange for following the rules, which generally does what it needs to do.
But anyone crazy enough could pay a pilot to let them jump out and not follow any of the licensing rules, and there isn’t much that would happen until something goes wrong and lawsuits start flying.
1. Pilot still follow FAA, and there are chapters about skydiving operations in FAA for pilots.
2. USPA Members have to follow USPA rules even if they jump not in USPA DropZones.
3. The gear manufactures (especially Sigma) have their own set of rules for using their gear.
Other than skydivers who want to be YouTube famous, there are not that many that do stupid shit.
My guess both will be pursued only if there is a lawsuit.
Ways they could lose their license for recklessness I guess, or if they were doing something dumb and someone landed on someone in the ground.
But USPA’s rules get followed because they’re a good idea and it’s easier that way, not because someone is going to jail or losing an FAA license if they don’t.
Remember ‘recommends’ != ‘required’, and ‘should’ != ‘must’. If it’s not required or a must, it’s not a rule. It’s a suggestion.
In these cases an exceptionally good one, but caveat emptor. Hard to find a clearer example of ‘obvious inherent risk’, after all, and regulations tend to focus on protecting those that had no idea, or innocent bystanders.
Even training for pilots on how to drop skydivers is a should, not a must. Which considering how much someone hanging off the side of the plane changes aerodynamics, and how unusual it is to suddenly lose hundreds of lbs of weight on a GA aircraft in flight, is actually pretty amazing. You’d have to be really crazy to do it without it, but eh.
I have yet to meet anyone who didn’t have any idea once the jump plane door opened.
Something about that roar of the crisp air at altitude clarifies the mind. Or shuts it down entirely, depending on how one is wired. I’ve never seen someone go out the door ignorant, either way.
Notably one of the musts for pilots is that anything dropped from a plane won’t strike something it isn’t supposed to. Even if the thing dropped is a human. And the odds of someone hitting an innocent bystander on the ground without trying are pretty low.
I’m not current now, but I did hold a USPA C license for a long time, and had my share of close calls.
And let’s not forget about BASE jumping….
In USPA there are a lot of "recommended", but most of the larger dropzones enforcing recommended to required, for a long time. But yes, if we are taking about Lodi, they aren't USPA dropzone. So the only thing they follow are FAR Part 105 and manufacture requirements for Sigma rigs (tandems), which are pretty strict. There is another question why they don't follow those requirements, and why the government is not stricter about it.
> I’m not current now, but I did hold a USPA C license for a long time
It is nice that you have experience, and some understanding. I am with 1,500 jumps. I feel like new in a sport, still learning from people with 10,000+ jumps. Unfortunately, all of those licenses don't really matter much, the same as pilot instructors are usually private pilots with only 200 hours of flight, considering that you can get your license after 40 hours.
> and had my share of close calls
Definitely, I have seen with my eyes not once close calls, not once I have seen people being injured, and unfortunately witnessed a few fatalities. But I see that also while I am getting outside the house.
And BASE jumping is not a skydiving related sport. Those are two different sports. There is also paragliding, speed flying, and a lot more, and yes, they use fabric over the head, but those are not the same sports.
The FAA only cares about parachute types for reserves.
They only regulate actual jumping in a handful of situations all involving controlled airspace and large crowds or near/in clouds. Solo jumpers are not interesting for them as long as no one on the ground gets killed and property not destroyed.
No special training or certification is required by the FAA for skydivers (except tandem instructors), and for pilots.
Training types are extremely thinly regulated (really just a couple of gotchas to keep aircraft from crashing).
And base jumpers started as skydivers originally, and the original equipment was skydiving equipment.
Different sport now? Yes.
You should read it, it’s pretty short. The CFR I linked summed it up pretty good.
If there is a specific area you think I’m wrong, please do point it out.
You said - it is not regulated: I corrected, that there are FAR chapters about parachuting in the USA, actually SIM has all of them highlighted https://www.uspa.org/sim/9 and USPA exists with a set of rules and recommendations. Ah, and FAR mentions TSO, which are the requirements for the gear to be used for skydiving (TSO approved rigs and reserve canopies). I do believe this is more than enough for us skydivers.
Do you want more regulations? But why Skydiving? Why not skiing, kite surfing, surfing, mountain biking? Have you looked at the "regulations" about water sports? Why are those not regulated? Those other sports don't have injuries? How many people are getting hurt by other skiers on the mountain?
…In the USA. In Europe it is a rather different story.
We took an instructional vhs course for a few hours and were allowed to jump solo with no previous experience.
The airplane hangar had a ‘wall of death’ that went to the ceiling listing everyone that died there.
I was afraid of heights at the time as well.
That said, it was a great experience and have no regrets.
Anyhow, all went well, and I received a heluva rush. But that was it for me, didn't want to do it again.
P.S. if you climbed out onto the peg, you weren't coming back in. The instructors made it clear that it was too dangerous to try, and the airplane couldn't land with you on the peg. So they showed us a piece of pipe they'd use if you tried to climb back in or wouldn't let go.
The old protocol was just to cut the line and let them deploy as normal but now they have a whole device to try to pull them back in. I've heard sometimes the damage is much worse cause you spend more time in the air and hitting the plane. Saw a video of it once where the device took forever to deploy and you just heard a constant banging from the back. Sounded horrible.
I guess this system was started because someone has their line cut and was already unconscious and didn't survive the landing or was seriously injured.
Not every fear needs to be pathologized. It's good to hear freefall from miles above the earth.
I mean... "I cut my finger off to deal with the fear of it" is a ridiculous statement, but for some reason it's okay here.
I'm proud to fear skydiving .
The article is a little vague about the failure but I'm a skydiver and this might not be the instructor's fault. I know that sounds insane but hear me out.
The article says "main and reserve parachutes had tangled, preventing either from opening". This could mean a few things:
1. Neither chute was ever deployed - "total malfunction" on main and reserve where they're both stuck in the container (backpack thing holding the parachute).
An instructor following perfect protocol with a poorly packed reserve would have died here, and they likely did not pack the reserve themselves. Reserve chutes are packed by a master rigger who's required to apply a seal and update a little paper record on each rig indicating when it was packed and by whom. These are meant to be checked before you're allowed to get on a plane. Reserves are (thankfully) rarely opened until they're due to be repacked based on time. There's overlap between master riggers and instructors who handle tandem jumps, but the reserve was most likely not packed by that instructor.
2. Main deployed but has a "partial malfunction" (out but not fully open), reserve then deployed and tangles with the main.
This would be the instructors fault - in this case they should cut away the main before deploying the reserve.
3. Main has a "total malfunction" where it doesn't come out at all, instructor deploys reserve, then main deploys late and tangles with the reserve.
This one is inconclusive but probably not the instructor's fault. Protocol here is don't waste time cutting your main because you're falling fast with no drag from a partially deployed chute and the main is unlikely to ever open. The reason it could still be the instructors fault is if they had a chance to cut away the main after it came out and failed to do so before they tangled.
As I recall, free fall is about 120 mph, while a tangled chute can cut it to 60 mph. I know this from a newspaper article about a man who survived a tangled chute fall onto pavement.
But yes, a partial deploy will slow you down somewhat.
And mildly related there's this website about free fall survival that I find fascinating:
I’ve done a “solo” skydive where you jump out with 2 instructors and then they pull the line and you’re on your own. As a part of the training, we just had one motion (if I’m remembering right) to jettison the main and switch to reserve. Is that a potential configuration or do I have it wrong?
In my hypothetical failure case you referenced it wouldn’t help because the instructor didn’t cut away the main - they went straight to their dedicated reserve handle.
Cutting away should automatically deploy the reserve, but deploying the reserve from the reserve handle doesn’t automatically cut away the main.
Nobody tells students anything about the RSL at this stage, just teaches them basic Emergency Procedure - "Look at Red, Grab Red, Look at Silver, Pull-Punch Red, Pull Silver".
The square canopy had one end closed off by lines looped over the top of the chute, perhaps 75% was still inflated. The instructor decided to keep the main chute.
There was still significant drag, but no steering on the closed side, so we just spiralled into the ground at relatively high speed. The wind calculation was correct, so we hit a soft ploughed field.
Needless to say - we survived :)
I have never skydived and have no interest in doing so but from reading the other comments it seems like there's another possible scenario:
Main deploys badly. They jettison the chute which deploys the reserve--but the jettisoned chute is hung up on something, doesn't actually jettison.
So, among the USPA's membership, there's a ~3 * 10^-6 chance of death per jump, which is basically compatible with how it had been described to me in the past: ~1/1000 chance that your main chute doesn't deploy, times a ~1/1000 chance that the reserve doesn't deploy, times a small factor because people (especially beginners) do dumb stuff.
At $10M statistical life in the US, that's $30 per jump, which is less than, but not vastly less than, the price of the jump itself. It seems quite plausible that the jump centers that are not members of the USPA have higher risk, which could start too look overly risky (in the specific sense that consumers would be much less likely to participate if they had access to the figures). But I'd bet it's less than $200/jump worth of risk.
I wish these sorts of discussions would focus more on the numbers and making sure the risks are tracked and public.
In other words, we would expect that 14 facilities of similar death counts to the one in the article would equal the total US fatalities for a year. The USPA dropzone locator [1] lists 142 facilities, so if we take everything at face value then this facility is ~10x worse than the average for USPA members.
> But I'd bet it's less than $200/jump worth of risk
In this case at least, it seems that this specific facility is higher risk than that. And with a lack of legally mandated reporting requirements, I'd say the onus is on a facility to prove safety once it's averaging a death every 1.3 years.
The issue is that I would expect at least a factor of 10 typical variation in the number of yearly jumps done at different facilities, so it’s hard to conclude anything without getting at least a rough guess of how many jumps they are doing. (The article correctly notes that the inability to find this number publicly is a real problem.)
So it seems the lesson here is to make sure you only jump at places that are part of the USPA.
You may be comparing to the price of a tandem jump.
If you're a USPA member with a skydiving license and your own parachute, the price of a ride to 10k feet in a Cessna 172 is as low as $25.
> ~1/1000 chance that your main chute doesn't deploy
Yes
> times a ~1/1000 chance that the reserve doesn't deploy
No. There is way smaller chance that your reserve would not deploy, not even to M, but MM. I think there were some stories about fatalities caused by this. The one issue I remember - there was a gear issue in a condition, when a skydiver is passed out and on his back - AAD (Automatic Activation Device) fired at 1000 feet, and the reserve did not open in time. I am not sure if that was a fatality or not. But all the containers of this type went through modification.
Main does not open because they are packed by skydivers or packers in 5–10 minutes (or 30-60 if you are new). So you can skip the step, or do it not correctly, or forget something. Reserves are packed by FAA certified riggers and it takes at least an hour to pack the reserve. Reserves are packed similar to BASE canopies (where there is only one canopy, and it has to open).
> a small factor because people (especially beginners) do dumb stuff
That is a big factor. Similar to car drivers, some skydivers just feel too confident at the beginning of their career and start doing low, high-performance turns. And obviously, there are some other various factors - weather, other skydivers, other people, and own mistakes.
Thanks. Do you have a cite on this? I am pretty skeptical of any complicated mechanical system (including not just the packed suit, but also the calibrated altimeter, etc) having a 10^-6 malfunction rate. Like, I would consider having the altimeter mistakenly calibrated to lower elevation a case of “the reserve failing to deploy” even if it was packed perfectly or whatever. Likewise if your main deploys wonky, you cut it and get into a spin, and then reserve gets tangled as it comes out.
BASE canopies are packed the same way as Reserve canopies. And there are people with over 4500 BASE jumps in their lifetime. Reserve canopies are not the same as main, with different characteristics. Even opening them in a spin gets you a flying canopy that is hard to control, but probably will save your life. And there are also all depends on the type of your main canopy, if we talk about Tandem or Student canopies - those spins aren’t going to affect that much reserve opening. The high performance canopies will, but a lot of jumpers don’t jump with anything that can deploy their reserves automatically, preventing this issue of high spins and deployment of the reserve. And instead trying to stabilize the body position.
Unfortunately nobody has a data about how many reserve rides there are, and how many were unsuccessful. I mean it is possible to find recently unsuccessful, if there are any, guess how many jumps are there in general, and guess that every 1000 jumps there were at least one reserve ride. So some stats can be done on that. But based on your logic out of 3M jumps a year in USA we should have seen 3 fatalities caused by not opened reserve.
Also seems like you are combining reserve and aad into one system, which is not correct. The idea behind the reserves, that in most cases it will be manually deployed. And for the cases when the pilot is unconscious there is AAD the purpose of which purely try to save a life, with just one manufacturer it is known that it saved more than 5000 lives https://www.cypres.aero/info/saves/
However, there is definitely the possibility of death from jumping out of an airplane and I don't think any reasonable person would think there isn't.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9859333/#:~:tex....
https://edinburghorthopaedics.org/media/cfikoe2l/bunion-corr...
Like one, I assume tandem has a higher incident rate, and also that first time divers has a higher rate as well.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9859333/#:~:tex...
As I understand it, single beginner jumps are more dangerous than tandems with experienced jumpers which are more dangerous than experienced singletons. However, I don't think there is a significant difference overall. But in this study, there is no such data other than the overall statistics.
When I skydived it was tandem, so at least I would be going out with someone who was experienced. I would probably do it again if I wasn't married with a child.
For skydivers in the sport - this task is not terrifying anymore. It is the same as driving a car. You know shit can happen, but the more open you keep your eyes and check everything, the less likely anything is going to happen.
> For skydivers in the sport - this task is not terrifying anymore.
Yes, I understand. I meant that the stranger who you are strapped to is inevitably, unavoidably terrified.
Like this jump location, for example.
This suffers from the same issue as saying "200 years ago the life expectancy was 35".
Most of the people who die skydiving are inexperienced, reckless, or both. They are not the sort of people who are likely to make it to 1700 jumps.
If you say "among people who have survived 1700 skydives, how many died skydiving before reaching 3400?" I bet you will find it to be even safer.
https://www.uspa.org/about-uspa/uspa-news/uspa-posthumously-...
Edit: If the statistics held the same for him, at 46,000 jumps he had a 99% chance of dying from a failure.
A big problem is that when numbers change quickly, median numbers, or even average numbers, don't immediately capture that change. It can take YEARS for the real stats to come out.
That being said, it is absolutely ridiculous that this has become the drama it has. Federal departments should be given lawyers and be allowed to go after people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1nXjPhGrwY&t=2943s&pp=ygUZb...
That sounds implausibly high to me? When I click through I see:
There are general risks of surgery: wound infection 7%, bone infection 1%, painful scar (5%), blood clot in the leg or lung 1%, Complex regional Pain Syndrome(lasting debilitating pain) 1%, bone healing problems 1%, amputation 0.01%, death 0.01%.
Amputation and death are really both 0.01%?
Even mild may involve removal of bone and realignment of muscles, tendons, and ligaments surrounding the joint.
Source: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-t...
6 weeks later, he was getting amputated above the knee due to sepsis - had he left it another week or two, he’d be dead.
I've had some ankle fractures I didn't know about in the past, thankfully they didn't lead to more than a few weeks of inactivity, but have had absolutely miserable infections from a mild shin scrape and achillies cut.
Tragic really, he worked in a sharpening factory and spent his life doing this as a career, had many cuts and wounds over his years and a completely invisible injury took almost his entire leg.
I'm a skydiving instructor, btw, with about 2,000 jumps.
Skydiving is remarkably safe considering all the factors involved. That's primarily for two reasons: The gear and the training
* Like anything in aviation, the gear has iterated over the years to be very safe. Skydiving in the early days was less safe. We have better gear now that has made it much safer. Same for aviation: Airplanes have a lot of safety features that they didn't have decades ago, and fatalities and incidents in general are extremely rare.
* Training has come a long way as well, with a more standardized curriculum and like the gear, iterations over the decade to address weak points. Procedures have been developed so when faced with a situation, we can react instead of analyze. Problem solving in the sky is not a good option. So the likely things that could happen, we have procedures for that we memorize. They're simple for solo skydivers, and a bit more complicated for a tandem instructor.
With well maintained gear and proper currency on procedures, skydiving is very safe. The most common issues are sprained ankles or broken wrists from band landings.
So what causes the deaths?
Like the rest of aviation, we are the biggest risk factors: Human error.
One of the leading reasons why skydivers are killed is a sport called "swooping", which is spinning a parachute to build speed and planning out right above the ground. It's a sport with very little margin for error. 10 feet can meant the difference of dragging your toe across the water for an epic video clip or a broken femur (or worse). In skydiving, femur is a verb. "I heard so-and-so femured". Do a Google search on it and you can see both why swooping is appealing the practitioners and also dangerous as fuck.
A tandem jump doesn't involve swooping. So by virtue of being a tandem passenger, the leading cause of death of skydivers is eliminated. Lumping all skydives together from a risk perspective doesn't make much sense, given the wide variety of risks associated with various types of skydiving. Tandem skydives, while not risk free, are among the least risky skydives done.
The death of the 18 year old tandem passenger at Lodi was essentially human error. The tandem instructor had a malfunction (the drogue didn't inflate) and didn't react according to the training developed. There was a whole controversy about how the instructor examiner didn't train the new instructors correctly and just signed them off anyway. The death was sadly mostly a failure of training and procedures. The gear malfunctioned, as all gear can, but the proper procedures likely would've resulted in a mildly interesting story told over beers instead of a tragedy.
If better data collection was mandated, similar to GA pilot logbooks, we would be able to back up your personal knowledge with hard figures. However, we are stuck using general epidemiological data.
You are definitely right about swooping though.
https://parachutist.com/Article/rating-corner-why-are-tandem...
I used to knew a young woman whose family owned & operated a skydiving center. Once she was decently over 25 (fully adult judgment, supposedly), she never jumped again.
What insurers don't like is someone who throws off their "books" unexpectedly.
I don't know about motorcycle racing, but scuba and private aviation are plenty insurable. $1M 20 year term life goes for ~$100/mo if you're a younger pilot. There will be a somewhat smaller set of insurers to choose from, and a couple of outliers who try to charge you way more.
Not to be a shill, but I always use World Nomads Travel Insurance when I travel for scuba diving. It is simple to apply online and pay with a credit card. They have two levels of travel insurance: one for low risk activities, and another for higher risk activities, such as scuba diving.
Motorbikes are dangerous; people often die riding. For many people the risks exceeds the rewards, and they choose not to ride. Other people have a greater appetite for risk, and choose to live until they die.
I myself refuse to strap on ice skates (or rollerblades) having had 20 titanium screws put into my arm after falling on the ice. But I knew the risk I was getting into when I got onto the ice.
I can't remember a time when looking stupid stopped me from doing something. Perhaps that's just my natural state.
Though in addition I also wear snowboarding wrist guards which aren't a common piece of safety attire on the ice but I just can't risk my wrists. With gloves on they aren't that noticeable either though, just looks like I'm wearing long gloves from a distance.
> I wish it was more socially acceptable to ice skate recreationally with safety gear.
However, I am sympathetic to your concerns. One idea: Find a lake or river that is frozen and go skating with a friend that also wears safety equipment. You will feel less social embarrassed for being the only ones with safety equipment.
For motorcycle riding, that includes staying away from dangerous situations like bad weather, bad drivers, etc.
I can't find the statistics right now but seem to remember that the main source of fatalities is young men (< 25 years) on crotch rockets and alcohol. If you ride a sensible bike and stay sober, motorcyclists are only 3 times as likely to die as automobile drivers.
By what metric? They kill way more than anything mentioned in this entire thread
On the other hand, I didn't start really living my life until I nearly died.
Maybe because I did that first, skydiving was less interesting to me.
Falling out of the plane, there was just a strong blast in my face. None of the "stomach drop" you get from the free fall rides at amusement parks, no sense of speed. Grounds approaching, but you're so high up its not approached THAT fast.
Anyway, never again.
That said, I do ride motorcycles. I have for a long, long time. Well versed in the statistics of riding, well aware of what I can and can't control. Aware of my efforts at mitigating those things that I do not control.
I "know" it's a riskier activity, I do not perceive it as risky, but I do respect the situation. That said, I have a saying. I love motorcycling, I do not recommend it to anyone. It IS dangerous. It's especially dangerous to new riders. There is a learning curve, where the lessons can be painful, expensive, or worse.
I do not ride to experience "risk", I don't "push the envelope", I have "chicken strips" on my tires. My bike has a "performance" mode, I do not use it. But I do love riding. It's a true joy in my life.
People go on the most dangerous motorbike trials after gaining a lot of experience, and training a lot. Moreover, they won't do it unless they've used the equipment before, know it well, they tend to prepare everything themselves, and test it themselves beforehand, etc. They are experts, and take full responsibility.
In this case, someone who had never sky-dived before, went to center where he wasn't expected to prepare the parachute, understand the mechanics, test or operate any of the equipment themselves. A "professional" would do it— as makes sense. So it really is upsetting when it turns out, as per the verdict, that the "professional" was actually not properly trained.
There are risks to everything, but the reason there's tight regulation and licensing for life-threatening industries is that those of us who aren't experts should at least hope our lives are in the hands of someone doing their best effort to ensure safety.
Going to a hospital to have surgery done on me, and doing the surgery myself are two very different decisions. I agree with you. I certainly have no reason to be upset if I cut myself open and end up with a nasty infection. If this happens at a hospital, and I later learn it not only happens often, but the surgeon isn't properly certified to do surgery, I have reasons to be upset.
Parachutes are typically sized according to weight to manage rate of descent, so the extra weight shouldn't be an issue. Given the context I wonder if the military just calibrates around faster rate of descent because it's risky to stay in the air too long.
It ain't just the weight. Military jump situations are seldom optimized for joint safely - jumping at night, landing on rough terrain, etc. And neither military culture nor hostile defending forces encourage a "if you think you might have injured a joint, then remain in place and signal for medical attention..." approach.
(My cousin served from the later 70's to early 10's, mostly in the 5th Special Forces Group. Plenty of action, but rather tight lipped on details - as he should be.)
Objectively, people are irrational about probabilities. Study after study shows that you can give people probabilities and ask them for decisions, and they will usually be wrong.
People are also incapable of understanding the legalese they're signing (that includes privacy policies as well).
Without actual understanding the substance or form, in theory there is no actual agreement, and thus no contract waiver of liability. (No theory of private ordering is predicated on duping people because that world only produces fraudsters.)
So this comes down to burden of proof: courts assume that if you're legally competent, you can sign away anything. There are very limited situations with strong evidentiary requirements for getting out of it. There's nothing socially beneficial about this assumption. It just makes contract law easier to administer.
In terms of regulation, there's no clear mandate for NTSB, the FAA, the county or the state. Indeed, the incentive is to ignore it: why spend a ton now to maybe save some indefinite person in the future?
Only the professional organizations - the medical lobby, the parachutist whatever - want to do (only) what's needed to keep business going, but that's not enough, and it's a strong incentive to hide problems.
Add to that lack of any personal honor (of being a responsible pilot or trainer or practitioner) in fields undertaking as any job in a backwards economy.
So: no regulation, no law, no private standards or personal honor will prevent excited customers from making this mistake, and some business person will engage in enough denial to make money off them.
At a minimum, neither waivers nor limited liability should not be available for gross negligence as a matter of law, and any form contract should be construed against the writer. Making this consistent and clear across all jurisdictions would root out most abuse without affecting responsible businesses.
For me its not about the probabilities its about the mitigations and ability to make an informed decision
On a consumer protection front, this activity lacks both
There’s no “look both ways before crossing the street”, its “sign this waiver before crossing the street, only 10 people actually died so I don’t know why you’re still on this topic”
This is somewhat true, but often the effect disappears when the scenario is described clearly. For example most setups for the conjunction fallacy are written in such a way that their ordinary interpretation is exclusive, but are claimed to be inclusive by the researcher. This is much like replying to an “x or y” question with “yes.”
For example:
Which is more probable?
Linda is a bank teller.
Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
Linda is a bank teller and is not active in the feminist movement.
Skydiving fatalities aren’t even in the top 100 causes of death in the US, and statistically if you drive any significant distance to the DZ you’re more likely to die on the drive there. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9859333/]
Unless the DZ is super shitty anyway. Even Lodi is way safer than recreational drugs though, and good luck stopping THOSE.
So I’d argue the relevant regulatory authorities are doing at least as much as they ‘should’ except for perhaps Lodi which is a public safety hazard.
I once rode 22k miles in a year in the Berkeley and Central valley area. Technically that has the risk profile of doing 700k miles in a car. Not even one close call that year. Amazing what not being on your phone can do for you.
If there was ever a quote that makes me understand why corporate PR teams tell everyone else not to talk to the press without training....
Then the other guy from the lobby association saying "denunciate" like it's a real word in his refusal to be interviewed.
Not getting a great sense of care about attention to detail in the industry, which I guess is the angle of the article.
But right, that other quote was horrible. Almost too perfect a fit for the complete psychopath image they were painting.
> The most recent death at the center occurred in April 2021, when 57-year-old Watsonville woman Sabrina Call slammed into the ground after her parachutes tangled.
> “We’re sad, but it’s just like a car wreck or anything else,” Dause told reporters at a press conference two days later. “You have to go on.”
Another one from another article[0]... imagine being this complacent with people literally dying because of your business and its poor operation:
> "It's an unfortunate situation, but if you see a car wreck they don't close the freeway, it's something that unfortunately in this sport, in skiing, in scuba diving, there are fatalities"
[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/40-million-ruling-against-skydi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verr%C3%BCckt#Design
- Self-regulation of inherently dangerous activity
- Unclear jurisdiction of what government organization, if any, enforced existing regulations
- Non-reporting of injuries and events
Would be nice to know how this compares to the death rates at other centers, and who packed the chute.
Maybe some regulation could be helpful to ensure postmortems happen so other divers can learn from the tragedy like with aviation
>The association maintains a database of fatal skydiving incidents on its website and said while last year its members reported making 3.65 million jumps, there were ten reported civilian deaths in US.
So 28 for a single center seems much unless they have an insane amount of jumps over the years
> With modern equipment and training methods, fatalities occur in less than 1 per 100,000 cases, and serious injuries requiring hospitalization in less than 2 per 10,000 cases. This puts the assessment of skydiving as a high-risk sport into perspective.
1 in 100k seems pretty bad if you make a hobby or job out of this
https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/how-about-not-overcoming...
Basically, getting all macho about "overcoming your fear" is BS. If you want to risk your life for the adrenaline high of surviving, go ahead. But don't try to shame anyone for not wanting to.
I was invited to some rafting trip many years ago, which I didn't go at all. One of my friends went. It was a two-segment experience, he was in the boat for the first segment and decided to get out and walk the second segment. I think he described it as not unlike getting flushed down the toilet, so I thought I made a good choice. Also, nobody got hurt but everyone got sunburns.
OK, here you go:
There’s those market forces kicking in after, ohhh, a couple dozen deaths.
Truly harrowing, and I’m pretty sure this Dause character is a bona fide psycho.
That doesn't seem bad to someone on the outside. I would expect similar counts (or higher) for other extreme sports like rock climbing, racing and cave diving.
1. FAA has chapters about skydiving operations. They are simple and tiny, but they exist.
2. USPA has rules. USPA members has to follow them, even when they jump not in USPA locations.
And yes, Lodi is known for their operations. If you go to the USPA drop zone, it is different.
I was big into biking since I was a kid and injured many times because I had cheap bicycles. My friends and I would do tricks with our bmx bikes, or go into construction sites and whatever. Got a rebar through my foot one time...
Once I had a swe job, health insurance, and disposable income, got a mountain bike and started hitting up black and double black diamond trails without watching any videos or reading maps. It was gnarly and so much fun. I'd go solo and even at night or early morning with a headlamp.
I stopped a few years ago because a unrelated knee injury from childhood caused me to have limited range of motion in my leg, and had a close call which could have been bad. I kinda like being bi-pedal, so now I am boring. Maybe when I'm like 45 or 50 when I don't gaf again I'll get back into it.
They probably rushed through the video since it was tandem. There's not really much you are supposed to do as a passenger, more what not to do. Doesn't seem like it would have helped here anyways. I've thought about skydiving before. I think I'd want to go AFF. Partly because I want to actually learn about it, but also I'm near the weight limit for most tandem jumps.
So what if it wasn't in the US. Does it vary much elsewhere?
Shoots being packed really shitty to keep the flow of jumpers going?
Whistleblower about the lack of oversight?
WTAF is with these assholes commenting this is acceptable? It's not. Not even close. In spite of Boeing's efforts, no one died in a commercial aviation disaster in 2023. Zero is the bar. Not 1.
> no one died in a commercial
> aviation disaster in 2023.
But you had no such disclaimer, hence the correction.
Skydiving is a risk activity, a calculated a risk but a risk nonetheless.
but man, am I bad at math.
Skydiving seems insanely risky because it's scary but it's statistically not particularly risky [0], especially for conscientious skydivers at well-run drop zones. The calculation on "calculated risk" changes dramatically once you start blowing off safety protocol, which are what keep the sport relatively safe.
My first jump there was a static line solo and they gave an hour long classroom session followed by time in a hanging harness practicing emergency procedures and malfunction recognition.