Deaths at a California skydiving center, but the jumps go on(sfgate.com)
sfgate.com
Deaths at a California skydiving center, but the jumps go on
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/deaths-california-lodi-skydiving-center-19361603.php
331 comments
Isn't actually collecting judgements hard? I thought I read, in some article about how Alex Jones hasn't paid any of his judgement, that it's not uncommon to take decades before seeing any money. Often people settle for a greatly reduced sum that they can get right now, for that very reason.
Is it? Yes. Should it be? No.
It's long past time to stop letting rich people manipulate the legal system to get away with their criminality.
It's long past time to stop letting rich people manipulate the legal system to get away with their criminality.
> rich people
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.
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.
It's not so easy to get non-rich people to pay, either. The court can order it, but the court doesn't do enforcement. The party owed the money has to go pay another outfit to do wage garnishment. Of course, the debtor can just quit and go get another job, and that step has to be repeated.
I enthusiastically agree with this. Try having your car/vehicle stolen, the offending party caught and pled guilty, ordered by a judge to pay back the damage they have done ... and do nothing (despite making, technically, massive untaxed sales on untaxed drug income)
(the hustle and bustle of big city life!)
still waiting, philadelphia
In my country (in Europe) wage garnishment is handled by the government, so once you have the right to collect it is easily enforced.
it’s the same in the US but you can’t garnish the wages of a corporate entity
So corporations are people but don’t have to play by the rules. WTF.
> If I, as a peon, owed child support or something
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.
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.
"The miracle of credit, my dear boy. The more we owe them, the better they treat us!" - 'Dr. Absalom', Westmark (Lloyd Alexander)
It's more about wage garnishment (easy) vs asset seizure (hard).
In Sweden we have "The Enforcement Agency", a government agency that does both with the same process. And it's the same process for both companies and private persons. Credit risk is a lot lower in Sweden for that reason, compared to similar markets such as Denmark.
Just for information this is the same in Switzerland, but please note we are not the same :)
It is the same system. It is the system. It is the entire point of the system.
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.
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.
> The stupendous sums beings sent overseas but if it gets to domestic expenditure they ("our representatives") get all contentious
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.
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.
So you are confirming that it is the system. Yes, MIC is getting the war funds and "spending it in US" means MIC gets the money and then they do with it whatever it is they do with their massive pile of monies. I hear they get parked 'overseas'.
riehwvfbk(2)
> including asset seizure and wage garnishment
For child support it's usually contempt of court which implies jail time.
That's usually how debts (civil matters) turn into criminal problems.
For child support it's usually contempt of court which implies jail time.
That's usually how debts (civil matters) turn into criminal problems.
Well yeah, there are two systems, and so two paths that get followed.
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.
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.
What on Earth difference does this distinction make to "Joe Public", exactly, given that they lack the wealth to navigate these systems?
"Ooh wow, I better understand how the system is specifically structured to grant inherit privileges to those with wealth, now I feel... ???"
"Ooh wow, I better understand how the system is specifically structured to grant inherit privileges to those with wealth, now I feel... ???"
Your definition of wealth, and mine, might be different. I would describe anyone who owns a home, or business, to be wealthy. (If you own both, also risky).
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.
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.
Maybe I'm just really ignorant but I don't totally understand how to mitigate the "risk" (?) of home ownership? For a few hundred dollars a year? Does this just refer to home owner's insurance, or something more?
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.
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.
Significant assets (anything over say, 10k in value) should probably be owned by a trust, corporation, or anonymous offshore LLC or foundation. (Escalating by value). The cost of doing this runs about 300-1000-3000 a year.
(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.
(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.
This is all very bad for our society. But maybe I do agree with you that more people of modest wealth should take advantage of it. This would make the problem more visible, and thus more likely to be fixed.
I've come to this counterintuitive solution too.
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.
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.
Fun fact: The equivalent concept in CS terms is "backpressure".
I agree, especially in the case where only the wealthy are doing
How far you go down the road of using structures for tax avoidance is up to you.
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.
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.
Definitely. I certainly did not mean to conflate tax avoidance and asset protection, even though in some cases they go hand in hand. I apologise if I was confusing in my explanation.
I assume you own your house instead of a trust owning your house. Start there
(First, thanks for the hint. Looking into trusts in general has been on my todo list, but also) I guess I'll embrace the ignorance fully. What if I have a pile of money and no house, do I need a trust? What amount of money or (future) house do I need to justify a trust? What does the trust even do for me?
Or maybe a better question, where's the "oops I have a pile of money, now what" literature I should read?
Or maybe a better question, where's the "oops I have a pile of money, now what" literature I should read?
It's probably a good idea to talk to a financial advisor. You may need to talk to a few before you find someone who understands your goals and what is on offer. A good one will be able to explain in clear terms what each option accomplishes.
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.
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.
In the U.K a typical person will start a limited company which is limited by the assets it has, not factoring in the personal holdings of the directors.
However why would I give such a company credit unless it’s assets outstrip its liabilities?
However why would I give such a company credit unless it’s assets outstrip its liabilities?
Ah right so because you can afford your mortgage payment you should also... be able to pay a lawyer and form an LLC and throw a bunch of money at it every year?
(Also as I said elsewhere in some states - Texas - they can't seize your home anyway, excepting stuff like mortgages)
(Also as I said elsewhere in some states - Texas - they can't seize your home anyway, excepting stuff like mortgages)
It's not as simple as that, and will differ from person to person based on their situation, risk profile, and jurisdiction. Consult your financial advisor to see the best approach for you.
Significant assets (anything over say, 10k in value) should probably be owned by a trust, corporation, or anonymous offshore LLC or foundation. (Escalating by value). The cost of doing this runs about 300-1000-3000 a year.
It’s hard to get access to a professional that understands how to do this legally and can advise appropriately. Most financial advisors just peddle overpriced high fee index funds. Like how do you even find someone like that.
There are law firms that specialize in setting up trusts. We found a local firm who handled setting up a trust for our family and it was pretty straight forward and not very expensive. If your family has assets >$1M it's definitely something worth looking into (and quite possibly for lesser amounts too depending on your situation).
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.
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.
Onshore trusts are simple to set up and administer. Google "trust accountant" and you should find someone in your area.
No, I disagree that the solution is to understand and leverage this system. It is good to identify things that are bad and advocate for changing them. Yes, it is a useful step to understand the details of how things work and how they came to be the way they are, but that does not imply accepting them as inevitable and playing along.
> 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.
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.
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.
But if the system is unjust it is also our moral duty to attempt to dismantle it no?
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.
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.
The systems exist for a reason. Losing my life's accumulation at age 60 to a greedy or unscrupulous character is not a risk I personally want to take.
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.
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.
> The systems exist for a reason.
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 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 the rich like them.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Yep, you put this really well. A few commenters here are saying, "actually, if you're smart, you can figure out how to use this system to your advantage!". But we all know that. What some of us are saying is: Yes, anyone can do this, and that's bad.
[deleted]
> The solution is to understand it, leverage it
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!
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!
Yeah, how dare people be upset when you wave capital in their face and say "stop being poor and then you can take advantage of your peers like I do. It's okay, its The System". Come on.
Firstly, as i mentioned, there are costs to reducing risk, so it's counter productive to educate poor people on how to structure assets when they have no assets.
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."
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."
> Secondly it's not "taking advantage" in a pejorative sense. It doesn't make other people poorer.
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.
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.
> 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.
Is the above also an argument against insurance? If not, why not?
Is the above also an argument against insurance? If not, why not?
Insurance companies payout, unlike people with assets structured in a way that protects them. Thus insurance companies are heavily incentivized to reduce the likelihood of having to pay out claims. They are experts at estimating risk and managing risk.
In some places it is illegal to insure against liabilities stemming from criminal activity, for this exact reason.
Structures don't make people do illegal things, people do illegal things.
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.
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.
This might be a good argument if "this person did something really bad and escaped accountability by shielding their assets" were a crime that results in prison time. But it ain't!
> It doesn't make other people poorer. It protects assets from creditors.
By making those creditors poorer?
By making those creditors poorer?
Creditors tend (in my experience) to be corporations, not individuals. And having seen corporations behave very poorly to many, and given the resources they have to look after their own interests, I don't set out to arrange my finances to their best possible advantage, no.
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.
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.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'm not sure if uour answer is sarcastic, or serious. I suspect you got a downvote for that ambiguity.
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.
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.
I was dead serious and I may have gotten a bit emotional because it's a pet peeve of mine.
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>
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>
I understand and completely get where you are coming from. People seldom thank you for pointing out their poor life choices :)
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.
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.
You do realize that what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you is poor and you don't listen to poor people right?
I understand how you can read it that way. But that is not my intent, and clearly also not true.
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.
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.
Here's your words:
"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.
"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.
>> if you think the financial system is unfair
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.
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.
Yep, as you alluded to, the rules of "the game" are not static. It's good to advocate for changing the rules to make them more fair, and it's bad to advocate for the unfair status quo (which is what you've been doing), or changing them to be even more unfair.
If you don’t have a million your probably have most of your wealth in your home (typically protected by homestead exemptions) or retirement accounts (IRAs up to 1 million and 401k have no limit). Then a simple cheap umbrella policy could fill any gaps.
You're brushing off that these structures require an outsized level of wealth to pay the salaries of enough other people to make every legal entity a group project with diffuse responsibility. Without that, most judges are just going to say you're personally responsible for everything regardless of the legal structures you've set up. So no, it's not just a matter of us plebs learning how to use the system - it really is designed to privilege capital over individuals. For example see the blatant dynamic of the "Limited Partnership" predecessor to the LLC.
The amount of wealth required and the actions of judges will depend greatly on your situation and the local legislation. Consult a good financial advisor for the best solution in your jurisdiction.
I've read a bit about asset protection. The big problem I see is that how do you trust advice/strategies from any given advisor/attorneys will actually hold up, rather than simply being an expensive piece of paperwork that gets disregarded right as it's needed. Perhaps I'd feel differently if say I were in one of the few states that explicitly respected self settled asset protection trusts. But as things stand I'm somewhat salty that say even a straightforward LLC seemingly can't be relied upon to protect from the liability exposure of owning a rental property, when done by an individual. Meanwhile corpos have successfully convinced courts to create post-facto liability shields between business units that hadn't even been structured that way ahead of time.
Depends. Good luck getting a drop out of anyone who's not proper rich in Texas - you can't garnish wages (federal debts & familial support only) and you can't seize the only significant assets many people have (a house and a car).
As long as we keep writing discontented comments on the internet, I'm sure we'll get what we want any day now.
Please note that this is a specifically American. In most other countries, a judge simply issue an order for the banks most of the time electronically and the funds are automatically collected in a electronic manner.
The Alex Jones company bankruptcy is ongoing. Courts take time. The debtors have to agree to what they are willing to accept (and in the case of AJones, he is still defending against other lawsuits that might grow his group of bankruptcy debtors).
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).
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).
If you can social engineer the name of their bank, banks are quite responsive when sent a judgment and a writ of attachment (which courts are usually quick to give when they've entered your judgment).
You can generally get assets seized relatively easily, depending on how things are structured.
The challenge is a lot of sketchy folks will ensure they hold very little directly themselves, which complicates things.
The challenge is a lot of sketchy folks will ensure they hold very little directly themselves, which complicates things.
A lot of people accumulate wealth by refusing to pay what is owed. A prominent politician comes to mind as an example.
Regulatory entrepreneurship is also a thing. See: paypal, airbnb, uber...
> Regulatory entrepreneurship
I love the new phrases I pick up around here. That one is both superb, and a doozie.
I love the new phrases I pick up around here. That one is both superb, and a doozie.
Wow, this comment is timely
Realistically, if you don't pay your IRS taxes, nothing will happen to you for many years. If you're not egregious at doing so, you'll probably never be noticed. During the Obama years I believe they publicly stated they weren't doing audits of anyone below 400k in income.
Pretty sure it's no audits above 400k
The underfunded IRS during that time disproportionately audited people who got the Earned Income Tax Credit because it was easy and cheap compared to going after rich people. Where are you even getting that “publicly stated they weren't doing audits of anyone below 400k” from? Why does it even matter what they publicly stated at this point?
I failed to report an entire W2 on my taxes back in like 2018. The IRS sent me a nice letter that said "Hey, we noticed you did your taxes wrong, so we amended them for you and you owe us 272 dollars"
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.
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.
I know from experience that the IRS is no rush to hassle you over $200 because it costs more than $200 to prosecute you.
>If I missed $200 on my income taxes, the IRS would be up my ass within a year for it
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.
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.
They'd probably just use a treasury offset to collect. Not sure if they'd do it for $200, but I wouldn't be surprised. AAFES used to do it for less. Maybe they're more vindictive than the IRS.
They'll likely seize your bank account after two or three years and take their cut. California will do it in six months.
I think it was just after 2 years with the IRS and they took my paycheck.
California recently recalculated my returns and required about $20k from the last 5 years.
California recently recalculated my returns and required about $20k from the last 5 years.
jwilber(1)
I have jumped at this facility. My experience was similar to the description: rushed safety video that is playing while you are simultaneously given waivers to sign, forcing you to divert your focus between the two.
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.
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.
I grew up in the area and the locals knew about all the deaths. If you told anybody you were going skydiving there, people would assume you were crazy or suicidal.
Several years ago, a co-worker got a work group together for a groupon for this place. I lived. I didn't know about any of this. I assumed this was all tightly regulated.
Very little of skydiving is actually regulated. There are some basic FAA regs (reserves need to be packed by certified riggers, for instance, and no jumping through clouds, and a handful of other rules), but USPA is a voluntary ‘regulatory’ organization and they do the rest.
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.
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.
That is not entierely true.
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.
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.
The pilot is likely the only one in this list that might face some consequences prior to an incident. The rest would only come out after the lawsuits start.
I feel like both will have the same kind of consequences. Pilots will lose their pilot license, skydivers can lose USPA member license (and could FAA certifications if they have any, like drone piloting, rigging, etc). But I am not sure, I have only 14 hours of piloting lessons.
My guess both will be pursued only if there is a lawsuit.
My guess both will be pursued only if there is a lawsuit.
It would be easy for a pilot to follow the rules for their license, while no one is following USPAs rules.
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.
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.
Eh, read the CFR and tell me I’m wrong [https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/...]
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….
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….
FAR Part 105 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...
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.
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.
You clearly did not read part 105 even after you linked to it - none of it disagrees with what I said.
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.
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.
I am just trying to correct you in places, where from my point of view you are wrong. I am pretty familiar with FAR 61,65,105 and USPA SIM and IRM.
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?
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?
Read my original comment.
Back in the mid-2000s some friends and I jumped at a place in rural Ohio.
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.
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.
I did the parachute jump thing long ago, mainly to deal with my fear of it. It was a static line thing, where you climbed out onto a peg under the wing, with your ripcord attached to the airplane. You just let go. The static line was about 300 ft long so you fell a bit before the chute automatically opened.
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.
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.
This reminds me of military line jumps. Every so often the line doesn't deploy right and the jumper is just flapping in the wind hitting the side of the plane banging around.
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.
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.
> to deal with my fear of it.
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 .
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 .
Fear of heights is not the same thing at all as fear of flying.
My first jump was a solo one as well and was so awesome. They literally instruct you to climb out and hang off the wind of the plane before letting go and they throw your drag shoot out the door behind you. What a rush. As for this article really if you are going tandem there is nothing you really need to know in a video because the guy flying with you is going to tell you exactly that anyways before you go up as it is just as much about his safety. And there really isn’t much instruction. That being said it does seem like this place has a higher than normal death rate so I do think regulations should require more data collected like number of jumps per year and any accidents thoroughly investigated. Sounds like the Korean guy did not deploy his shoot correctly? I mean how did they tangle up? If main shoot was tangled did he not release it first before deploying reserve or how did this happen? You punch out the main then punch the reserve so it should have cleared. If it did not why did it not? That should be investigated just like a plane crash and then learn from mistakes. The attitude of this business just stinks of recklessness.
My only skydiving regret was doing it from an outfit near Taft, CA so I descended from the heavens back into....Taft.
I feel like locals always say that about any DropZone near them. I have heard the same about my previous home DropZone and the current one. Both are very active DropZone (tops of the USA). But yeah, every skydiver has heard about Lodi.
>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.
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.
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.
I did a tandem freefall jump that had a "partial malfunction".
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 :)
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 :)
> no drag from a partially deployed chute
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.
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.
These are not hard numbers. The velocity can vary quite a bit in free fall and depending on parachute state when tangled I'm sure that can greatly vary as well.
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:
https://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/ffresearch.html
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:
https://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/ffresearch.html
Yup. If you get a partial "mal" and have a "bag of washing" over your head, as we call it in UK, your terminal velocity can drop to the point where you can survive, but you'll be all busted up at best. It happens.
> 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.
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?
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?
Yep you’re describing an RSL - it’s a line that should deploy the reserve as the main gets cut away (although good practice to pull the reserve handle anyway as a precaution).
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.
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.
I believe they describe AFF Level 1 jump, where there are two instructors waiting for the student to pull the "line and you are on your own" which they describe a bridle of main pilot chute to main canopy. The idea of this jump is an altitude awareness and for students to pull their main canopy at the right altitude. When they don't - instructors do it for them. Which happens pretty often with students who never done tandems before.
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".
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".
Since it says they tangled I don't think your case #1 could be relevant.
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.
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.
But you still jumped.
Customers are not in a position to judge how much of a threat this might pose to their actual safety.
> Customers are not in a position to judge how much of a threat this might pose to their actual safety.
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".
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".
Which statistics are you talking about? According to the article, the only statistics available are from self reported data.
When I went jumping back in the 80s, I was told that the accident rate was around 1 in 1000.
I feel like I have always judged skydiving correctly. It's been a consistent "nope" for me my entire life.
Skydiving is much more safe than you think https://www.uspa.org/discover/faqs/safety
1500 jumps in 5 years (not that much), 1 reserve ride, one twisted ankle in early 100 jumps.
1500 jumps in 5 years (not that much), 1 reserve ride, one twisted ankle in early 100 jumps.
Nobody goes skydiving expecting to be 100% safe. Nobody. The thrill of danger is the whole point of the sport.
Unless they're providing skydiving to young children or the severely mentally disabled - which as I understand things, they aren't.
Unless they're providing skydiving to young children or the severely mentally disabled - which as I understand things, they aren't.
No, but they are expecting a certain level of competence that will minimize risk.
Competence in what, exactly?
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.
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.
Maybe competence with respect to having the instructors be certified. Or at least trained by people whose credentials aren't suspended.
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.
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.
[deleted]
Damn, if only we could apply this standard to driving
Are you saying that vehicular manslaughter and reckless driving are not crimes?
They are new names for existing crimes that were invented to lessen the penalties.
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.
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.
This is by design and it wouldn't make sense otherwise. It would be crazy if 50 legal jurisdictions just happened to all reach the same wrong conclusion. Driving a car non-negligently carries an inherent risk that you will kill someone and this risk is borne by all drivers. And we've decided that this risk is acceptable and legal to take on. You are explicitly allowed to do a thing that has a non-zero chance of killing someone else.
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.
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.
Don’t forget that the bar for negligence that also allows random distracted soccer moms, burned out and exhausted workers, and the 25% percentile of the bell curve to drive isn’t very high.
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.
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.
I think they are suggesting they’re not adequately enforced.
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.
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.
I think drivers regularly underestimate the life-altering consequences of a serious accident, especially if they're at fault.
I don’t expect driving to be safe but I don’t want to worry about the airbag maker sticking a IED in my steering wheel, for profits or something.
I feel as safe as driving a car. Except being on a plane, that is the main risk I take.
I am a certified FAA Rigger, 1500 jumps, used to be an AFF Instructor.
I am a certified FAA Rigger, 1500 jumps, used to be an AFF Instructor.
4.4 on Google maps with tons of positive 5star reviews
Survivorship bias
Note to self: If I ever go skydiving, post a scathing 1 star review immediately before getting in the plane, and update it if I survive the landing...
You mean one of these "if you are reading this note it means I am already dead. I am speaking to you from beyond the grave..." Yelp reviews??
(I will make this my default Yelp review for local restaurants...)
(I will make this my default Yelp review for local restaurants...)
Deathswitch loaded with 1 star review "I died"
Let's be fair here. "I died" is two stars. One star is "I died and my family isn't paid damages and the business owner gets away scot-free".
[deleted]
Wow, your commitment to accuracy is impressive. I’ve heard of pre-registration for scientific papers, but Yelp reviews is a new frontier :)
A $40m judgement didn’t stop them but a millistar drop
in their Google
rating will get em!
A potential customers is far more likely to read a negative Google review than a log of court judgements.
20% discount on your next jump bias too as well?
That's true for virtually everything. Most drivers have no idea how much danger they are in or may cause since our tests are a joke. Put them on a skid pad and/or autocross course (TireRack had a defensive driving AutoX program), and then they might start to learn about the vehicle dynamics.
Most drivers have a reasonable estimate of how common and serious car crashes are, since we drive and know people who drive and therefore have firsthand and secondhand experience with the matter
The same probably can't be said for most skydivers (I assume most are first timers ticking off a bucket list item.)
The same probably can't be said for most skydivers (I assume most are first timers ticking off a bucket list item.)
Because most people are drivers, they can recognize a "bad cab" or even a "bad bus" just when they see one.
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."
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."
By that same logic the skydiver had a reasonable estimate of how dangerous it was based on the stereotypical view of the activity (and his prayer before doing it).
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.
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.
Stereotypes probably aren't a good basis for reasonable estimates. The average "I would never skydive" person probably severely overestimates the risks. Somebody who does decide to skydive... I can't say. But unless they looked up the statistics I think it's fair to say they have less information about it than an average driver.
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.)
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.)
"Stereotypes probably aren't a good basis for reasonable estimates."
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.
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. Stereotypes about skydiving by somebody who has no experience and knows nobody with any experience are not comparable to having said experience. I think you're being very silly here because you gave an axe to grind against cars.
I don't have an axe to grind against cars. I'm usually commenting in defense of cars. However, improving the driving tests could improve safety. Most crashes are the result of poor judgement or a lack of understanding the rules.
"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.
"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.
> Most drivers have no idea how much danger they are in or may cause...
This is why we have vehicle safety regulations.
This is why we have vehicle safety regulations.
I'm from the UK, but took my driving test in California. The California test did feel like a joke - it lasted 15 minutes and involved 3 left turns, 3 right turns, 3 crossings of an intersection, reversing in a straight line and parking in a bay.
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...
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...
ah reverse around a corner, something I have not done since my driving test!
Oops! For what it's worth, I interpreted GGP in a way that was clearly wrong in hindsight. I thought they meant "our vehicle safety tests are a joke". I edited the GP.
"This is why we have safety regulations."
The regulations don't matter if people don't know them or choose not to follow them.
The regulations don't matter if people don't know them or choose not to follow them.
Scary. Sounds like a "scuba diving for newbies" session I took, where they would literally force you 16 meters underwater with only a quick spoken instruction about how to clear your goggles etc. Hair-raising.
"...priorities of profit over people" - sounds really disturbing
> According to its data, there were 10 fatalities out of an estimated 3.65 million jumps in 2023
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.
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.
The article also gives reason to be skeptical of the quoted "10 fatalities out of an estimated 3.65 million jumps in 2023". If we count 28 known fatalities at this one facility from 1983 to 2021, we get around 0.75 fatalities per year.
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.
[1]: https://www.uspa.org/dzlocator?pagesize=16&Country=US
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.
[1]: https://www.uspa.org/dzlocator?pagesize=16&Country=US
> so if we take everything at face value then this facility is ~10x worse than the average for USPA members.
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.)
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.)
Yes, but those statistics are only for USPA members. They don't include the more sketchy places like the skydiving center the article is talking about.
So it seems the lesson here is to make sure you only jump at places that are part of the USPA.
So it seems the lesson here is to make sure you only jump at places that are part of the USPA.
You can actually find Incident Reports on USPA website https://www.uspa.org/searchincidentreports
> ~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.
> ~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.
> No. There is way smaller chance that your reserve would not deploy, not even to M, but MM.
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.
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.
I mean maybe I overshoot a little with millions. But it is a known to have one cutaway (main malfunction) in around 1000 jumps. But giving the same for reserves is just not fair.
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/
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/
Highway driving is currently at 1.5 deaths per 100 million miles driven, so "~3 * 10^-6" is roughly equal to driving 200 miles on the freeway.
> 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.
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.
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.
Twin otters to 12k are worth the extra $20 though.
In the article the main and reserve chutes were tangled with each other, so maybe these probabilities aren't independent and can't be multiplied?
Sky diving is dangerous, but not that dangerous. A single jump is less dangerous than bunion removal surgery. (0.004% chance of death for skydiving and 0.01% for bunion removal) This puts the LD50 of parachute jumps around 1,700 jumps. (Not exactly something I would do for a job but would try once without worrying too much.)
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...
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...
> This puts the LD50 of parachute jumps around 1,700 jumps.
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.
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.
It's more of a rhetorical LD50. Otherwise Don Kellner would be dead as a doornail long before reaching his record.
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.
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.
The same could apply to economics. I feel like US stats still haven't caught up to actual numbers. For example, the number of six figure jobs.
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.
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.
In rock climbing there's some evidence that there is a U-shaped risk curve. Newbs who do dumb stuff on one end and experienced climbers who get complacent on the other.
That holds the same for airplane pilots as well. I love this lecture by Mike Patey:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1nXjPhGrwY&t=2943s&pp=ygUZb...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1nXjPhGrwY&t=2943s&pp=ygUZb...
I suspect that like many of these kinds of things, if you eliminate the "worst players" you get something significantly safer.
Like this jump location, for example.
Like this jump location, for example.
Worst players aren’t in the stats as they don’t report at all.
> 0.01% for bunion removal
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%?
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%?
Seems plausible. My relative died after getting a small cut on her toe which led to a staph infection that spread to her kidneys. Symptoms aren't necessarily as obviously tied to such an origin as one would think, and can be easily overlooked for too long.
I know a person who got a hairline fracture on his foot from dropping a knife on his steel toe cap boot - the metal knife handle hit the boot, not the blade.
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.
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.
Did you mean to say that the metal knife handle hit the boot, but not the steel toe? As in the soft part of the boot?
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.
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.
Ah yes, it hit the boot (which was steel toe capped) but I believe where the laces are, the top of the guys foot basically (no anatomy expert, but from a quick search it looks like a ‘tarsal’).
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.
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.
Surgery has gotten a lot safer in the last couple decades however, there are still risks. General anesthesia used to be ten times more dangerous than it is now but it's still not zero.
Why would you use general anesthesia for bunion removal? Wouldn't local be fine?
You might want to read up on what it is. It’s not like scraping a callus off the side of your foot.
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...
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...
Your link has: "Most bunion surgery is performed under ankle block anesthesia, in which your foot is numb, but you are awake. Occasionally, general or spinal anesthesia is used."
I do not know. But they do according the source I linked.
But is that sky diving number for just general skydiving, or a tandem dive with a completely new to the sport customer like anyone here would actually care about.
Like one, I assume tandem has a higher incident rate, and also that first time divers has a higher rate as well.
Like one, I assume tandem has a higher incident rate, and also that first time divers has a higher rate as well.
I would have assumed that tandem dives have a lower rate of fatality - I'd imagine that an instructor pays a bit more attention if someone else's life is at stake (this is just my intuition).
edit: from a cursory google search, tandem dives are about 2.5 times safer.
The thing that makes tandem jumps potentially more dangerous is that the gear is completely different from a regular sport rig - so it’s important to ask how many tandem jumps your tandem master has. He/she might have 10k jumps, but maybe only 200 on a tandem rig. As a former sport skydiver I wouldn’t go near a tandem jump unless the instructor had at least 500 tandem jumps.
2.5 times safer compared to anyone jumping, what about compared to the instructor non-tandem jumping on his/her own?
The source from the statistic is international including statistics from the USA, Germany and France. If you want further details you can read the NIH article here.
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.
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.
Yeah on the subject of single beginner jumps, you're allowed to jump on a static line without too much training. What this means in practice is that you have to get yourself out of whatever situation is causing you to approach the ground at terminal velocity. Someone I worked with did a static line jump for her first skydiving experience and her chute twisted together. Luckily she remembered the training they gave her and she was able to kick her legs and get the chute untwisted, but she was probably in the top 10-20% of people I've met in terms of her willingness to pay attention and remember directions. I think a lot of people would give in to panic.
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.
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.
Could you imagine being a skydiving instructor? Strapping yourself to some stranger, a first-timer in a terrifying task, and jumping out of an airplane with them? I'd only do it if they wore a straightjacket.
I have never been a tandem instructor, but AFF instructor, where we teach people to jump on their own. The satisfaction of seeing how much happiness those people get is undescribable.
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. 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.
I'm not criticizing skydiving, BTW. Have fun!
> 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.
> 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.
The skydiving accident rate also includes very experienced divers who do exceedingly reckless things, like wingsuiting next to mountains.
It does not because it only counts as a skydive if you exit an aircraft. If you're jumping off of land, it's BASE.
People deploy from aircraft and proceed to fly close to terrain with wingsuits. [1] is one example.
1. https://youtu.be/kooYQ0IOnoM?si=xCpGxbSmivlNY3e-
1. https://youtu.be/kooYQ0IOnoM?si=xCpGxbSmivlNY3e-
I mean, based on the observations in the article, there's really no way to know the accident rate with any certainty. No one is even keeping track. It's all reliant on self-reporting to a lobbying organization that most these places aren't even a part of.
This is a bit of looking at the statistics the wrong way.
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.
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.
You are more than likely, completely correct. These types of jumps are probably so safe that you are in more danger riding in a car to the jump than taking the jump itself.
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...
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...
This doesn't surprise me at all--for most activities the majority of the risk is in the tail.
I had a cousin who was a serious parachute specialist in the US Army. My understanding is that he only jumped when it was part of the job.
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.
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.
That's kinda the norm for dangerous sports, isn't it?
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.
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 think you demonstrate a common human scenario where we over-estimate the risk in notable activities and far under-estimate the boring ones. Motorcycle fatalities are about 25x higher than car, but car deaths are pretty low. Meanwhile smokers kill themselves and others at very high rates, and general inactivity leads to indirect deaths a magnitude higher. I'd also argue premature death from sky diving > slow, declining death from poor lifestyle, but I recognize that's not a universal opinion.
> car deaths are pretty low
By what metric? They kill way more than anything mentioned in this entire thread
By what metric? They kill way more than anything mentioned in this entire thread
I tried skydiving once, and was underwhelmed. Did nothing for me. I tried that "indoor skydiving" thing they had in Vegas, where you wear a particular style suit, and jump into an air stream powered by a propeller in the floor. The game is not getting slammed into the padded wall.
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.
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.
As an outsider looking in, there is a bizarre combination of advanced safety tech and completely useless standards in motorcycle safety gear. https://m.youtube.com/@FortNine has amazing videos covering all aspects of motorcycles that I have been enjoying as an outsider, including clear information on airbags, helmets, clothing, visibility, and how horrible pickup trucks are. Is it dangerous? More than a car certainly, but with good gear and training, it "appears" you can control for a lot of risks.
with good gear and training, it "appears" you can control for a lot of risks
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.
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.
The key is the "and training" part. Private piloting a small plane is quite safe if you have the "and training" - and that training includes avoiding situations where you're putting yourself in danger.
For motorcycle riding, that includes staying away from dangerous situations like bad weather, bad drivers, etc.
For motorcycle riding, that includes staying away from dangerous situations like bad weather, bad drivers, etc.
The big difference here is that most dangerous sports involve your own training, your own due-diligence and your own ability.
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.
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.
I wish it was more socially acceptable to ice skate recreationally with safety gear. Falling on the ice hurts. Falling on the ice if you’re dressed like you’re playing hockey is considerably less unpleasant.
"I wish it was more socially acceptable to ice skate recreationally with safety gear."
I can't remember a time when looking stupid stopped me from doing something. Perhaps that's just my natural state.
I can't remember a time when looking stupid stopped me from doing something. Perhaps that's just my natural state.
I wear figure skating protection when I'm skating recreationally, because the padding is slim it's basically imperceptible unless you are looking for it.
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.
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.
"Core" gear like helmets and knee/wrist pads seems totally acceptable now. "Extreme" biking/skateboarding (outside of street bmx & skating) has largely adopted safety gear too.
In Yosemite all kids are required to wear helmets on the ice rink (at Curry Village). If you don't have one, they provide them for free.
I give you permission.
> and choose to live until they die.
On the other hand, I didn't start really living my life until I nearly died.
On the other hand, I didn't start really living my life until I nearly died.
Can you share more about your near-death experience?
Most of the military jumpers have worn out backs, knees, etc from all the extra weight. Even if they wanted to jump for fun, they basically can't. At least that's for the guys I know.
Not sure when the people you know were jumping but I've heard a few older (non-military) guys at drop zones complain about shoulder, back and hip issues from harder openings with the rigs they used in the '90s and early '00s.
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.
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.
The extra weight is a factor in the harder openings. There are multiple different rigs even today, so I'm not sure if it's specific to one or another.
ah true, openings would still be harder - bigger canopy only saves you on landings
That's exactly right.
> from all the extra weight.
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.)
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.)
I don't think this knowledge is obscure. "Sky sports" are one of the few things that make a person practically uninsurable, along with scuba diving, motorcycle racing, and private aviation.
> make a person practically uninsurable, along with scuba diving, [...] and private aviation.
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.
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 sure about the others, but I have had no problem getting life insurance as a private pilot. Some companies won’t touch it, but plenty will.
It's a matter of risk balancing. A private pilot is more likely to die in a private plane crash, but also more likely to be able to afford paying for insurance.
What insurers don't like is someone who throws off their "books" unexpectedly.
What insurers don't like is someone who throws off their "books" unexpectedly.
My life insurance has no issue with me being a firefighter, or sky diving, as long as I don't combine the two and do smokejumping.
What about fire and skydiving?
https://youtu.be/VyV_tjIw-YQ?t=255
https://youtu.be/VyV_tjIw-YQ?t=255
I don't agree with your comment about scuba diving.
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.
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.
As a former regular skydiver decades ago, Lodi has had a bad reputation for many years. Lots of upjumpers would never even consider going there.
The sad thing is, there is no way for an incoming new customer to know that.
Agree. I got my A license a decade back, haven't jumped in 5 years. Saw the headline and assumed Lodi.
I did wonder if it was Lodi before even reading the article. I don't have any direct experience to know if the reputation is deserved, but indeed it does have one.
I don't really think this is about Lodi, or whether customers should know they could die. It's terrible law that makes this not only happen but inevitable.
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.
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.
Local pilot knowledge: Lodi is extra shitty.
It seems like so often the participants in an activity know where the problems are. Which suggests that surveying experienced participants and looking into whatever gets the most votes as hazardous.
> Study after study shows that you can give people probabilities and ask them for decisions, and they will usually be wrong.
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:
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.
This kind of reasoning is such a plague on the internet where if you argue (e.g.) one person was wrong, that implies the other person was right.
> 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.
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”
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”
There is a huge honking element missing from this analysis though. The definition of ‘good enough’.
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.
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.
With what I'm hearing about plane maintenance, dei pilots, and problems at air traffic control, I honestly think I would ride my motorcycle from SF to LA these days. That's how irrational people can be.
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.
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.
> “We didn’t stop because we don’t like the guy, we didn’t stop because we weren’t interested in the guy,” the center’s former owner, Bill Dause, told the local TV station, KFSN-TV, that day. “We didn’t stop because life goes on.”
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....
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....
Right? Took a while to parse and fix that: "We didn't not stop because we don't like the guy, we didn't not stop because we weren't interested... we didn't stop because life goes on."
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.
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.
No [sic] though. Journalistic standards are low today.
Why shouldn't denunciate be a real word? It is listed at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denunciate and https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/denunciate.
But right, that other quote was horrible. Almost too perfect a fit for the complete psychopath image they were painting.
But right, that other quote was horrible. Almost too perfect a fit for the complete psychopath image they were painting.
Yeah, he had another choice quote in there:
> 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...
> 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...
The situation sounds eerily familiar to the Verrückt waterslide incident, where self-taught engineers built an unsafe waterslide resulting in numerous injuries but was thankfully closed following the death of a politician's son.
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
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
When I went ziplining in Costa Rica, I was somewhat more concerned about injury than if I had been stateside, on the assumption that a facility with a bad record would be sued out of existence. Apparently I overestimated the benefits of living in a litigious society!
The place has 4.4 stars on Google Maps with 674 reviews.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/auZYzygWnnynvHiA9
https://maps.app.goo.gl/auZYzygWnnynvHiA9
They could kill 10% of their customers and still have a 90% good rating.
They could kill 90% of their customers and have a 90% rating. Dead customers don't leave reviews.
Now I'm imagining the review site deleting all the "this place killed my husband" reviews because they weren't written by the customer ...
Light on details.
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
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
I find [1]:
> 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
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9859333/
> 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
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9859333/
There's this
>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
>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
By accounts, this place has a rep. Discussed here a few days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39931228
I wrote a whole piece on this topic:
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.
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.
There might be some meta-fear to go with the peer pressure argument, such as "if I don't overcome my fear and go on this rafting offsite with my coworkers, I am afraid I won't be accepted as part of the team".
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.
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.
Great blog post. When you write again in the future, you should submit to HN. I am sure it would generate a lot of interesting conversation.
Second time this week someone's said that about an old post that I actually did submit to HN. Thank you.
OK, here you go:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39938456
OK, here you go:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39938456
> Today, the center is a bleak sight. The only signage visible from Highway 99 is the word “Skydive,” painted on a battered wooden board propped up by a car tire. Beyond that, the rusted frame of an old barn and a derelict phone booth stand next to the hangar where first-time divers nervously wait for their turn to hit the skies.
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.
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.
28 deaths since 1985 is 39 years. That's less than one death per year.
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.
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.
Reminds me of Skydive Chicago, whose founder died there in a jump accident after serving time in federal prison for also running a drug smuggling operation. They also had a dodgy safety record at the time, but this was more than 20 years ago.
I daresay many people who jump don't realize just how unregulated this whole thing is.
That is not true.
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.
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.
Previously (3 days ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39931228
[deleted]
[deleted]
Oh god I thought this was gonna be Oceanside
Well tbh it is fun doing things that push the limits and once you know the truth its all just a game anyway.
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.
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.
I’ll send you the Lodi dropzone address then :-)
Skydiving is too boring for me. But I love the views.
But this site you get the thrill of a possible hard landing!
Kind of odd the article talks about the instructor's English, but nothing of his experience or qualifications, or who packed the parachute (oftentimes it's 1 or 2 expert individuals, not the instructor; but we don't know if that's even a factor).
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.
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.
There are things you have to do while tandem but they're things that make it easier for the instructor to control the descent, and also things that lower the risk of you breaking something when you reach the ground. My instructor spent about 15 minutes explaining it before we hopped in the plane. It was pretty straightforward.
The article is bizarre when it says: "Kwon had been neither officially certified nor properly trained to lead tandem jumps in the U.S.".
So what if it wasn't in the US. Does it vary much elsewhere?
So what if it wasn't in the US. Does it vary much elsewhere?
Hm, somehow I missed that line. That makes a big difference as far as possible liabilities. I assume it doesn't vary much if the equipment is the same. The physics are standard.
Serial killer purposely packing bad shoots?
Shoots being packed really shitty to keep the flow of jumpers going?
Whistleblower about the lack of oversight?
Shoots being packed really shitty to keep the flow of jumpers going?
Whistleblower about the lack of oversight?
When you jump out of a plane and your parachute fails and you know you’re going to die, there should be no sense of surprise. Only terror about what could happen next.
I am afraid of skydiving. Can understand why people do it still
Praise me! I only murdered 1 customer a year, some of them basically children. /S
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.
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.
Interesting Airbus omitted it from their report, Yeti sure appears to be a commercial airline:
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2024-03-2023-a-ye...
If you read past the inaccurate headline to their report you'll see that they really mean "western-built commercial air transport jets that carry over 40 passengers (including cargo aircraft)". They also exclude business jets.
But you had no such disclaimer, hence the correction.
But you had no such disclaimer, hence the correction.
the people going here are actively jumping out of an airplane. they chose to do this and are well aware of the risks. is it dumb? possibly. is this some mad profiteering stealing money from millions and casually ignoring people dying left and right in some cold-hearted money-making scheme? absolutely not. disclaimer: i'm one of those dumb ppl who jumped at this place - quite enjoyed it. slow news day i guess.
Lodi is a notoriously unsafe drop zone (I'm an experienced skydiver in the bay area). I don't know if it's a cold-hearted greed thing so much as it's an anti-rules, anti-establishment thing where they like to scoff at safety and protocol. I wouldn't jump there or even do a group dive with anybody who regularly jumps there.
somehow I think there is more to this story than what is presented.. meanwhile, amateur skydiving among able-bodied people was fun in the 1970s.. there was a street musician in my neighborhood who was experienced .. in more ways than one! he is fine and has lived a long life.. airplane people seem to attract legal type-A characters, it seems..
Averaging less than 1 death per year since they've been opened.
Skydiving is a risk activity, a calculated a risk but a risk nonetheless.
Skydiving is a risk activity, a calculated a risk but a risk nonetheless.
I'm an experienced skydiver - one death per year is an insanely low bar for any drop zone. Lodi is notorious for incidents and I would never jump there.
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.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9859333/
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.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9859333/
This. I used to jump at a DZ in the Midwest that has been in operation for like thirty years and had, I think, only one fatality. But we had great safety people in charge and were really careful with students.
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.
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.
If a drop zone had anywhere near one death per year, I'd find somewhere else to jump. Skydiving isn't that dangerous.
That still seems high given the industry-wide stats unless they're doing a crazy number of jumps per year
https://www.uspa.org/discover/faqs/safety
https://www.uspa.org/discover/faqs/safety
Skydiving nationally is less risky than rock climbing (even in the gym) but a factor of like 5-7 iirc. If my local gym had this high fatality rate they'd probably have to shutdown because they wouldn't be able to obtain insurance.
Pretty sure when you join a gym you sign a waiver of liability. At least if the gym owners have any sense at all.
Gross negligence or harmful intent can not be waived at least here in CA
The risk I took was calculated,
but man, am I bad at math.
but man, am I bad at math.
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!