> In 2010 and 2011, the FAA issued two fines against Dause and his business for failing to comply with federal aviation regulations, totaling $933,000. But FAA spokesperson Gregor told SFGATE that the fine was never collected by the agency, which eventually referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for further action. The Justice Department did not respond to questions about whether the fine was ever paid.
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!
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.
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.
>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 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.
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.
>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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> ~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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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:
Which is more probable?
Linda is a bank teller.
Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
An ordinary person will read the first as:
Linda is a bank teller and is not active in the feminist movement.
Because the first option is analyzed in the context of the second and ordinarily disjunction in English is exclusive where it isn’t explicitly inclusive.
> 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”
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.
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.
> “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....
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.
> 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"
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.
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!
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] ryandrake|1 year ago|reply
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!
[+] [-] martincmartin|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] babyshake|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] anon291|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] PaulHoule|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ianferrel|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] chabes|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] calibas|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] longerthoughts|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Phil_Latio|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] racked|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] eleveriven|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jessriedel|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bnprks|1 year ago|reply
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
[+] [-] calibas|1 year ago|reply
So it seems the lesson here is to make sure you only jump at places that are part of the USPA.
[+] [-] outcoldman|1 year ago|reply
> ~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.
[+] [-] ThrustVectoring|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] margalabargala|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] grumpopotamus|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] foxyv|1 year ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] bell-cot|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] michaelt|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] giantg2|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffbee|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] DoneWithAllThat|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] briffle|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] margalabargala|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] rlpb|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] w10-1|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] storyinmemo|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] User23|1 year ago|reply
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:
An ordinary person will read the first as: Because the first option is analyzed in the context of the second and ordinarily disjunction in English is exclusive where it isn’t explicitly inclusive.[+] [-] yieldcrv|1 year ago|reply
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”
[+] [-] lazide|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] talldatethrow|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] michaelt|1 year ago|reply
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....
[+] [-] scrumper|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] amatecha|1 year ago|reply
> 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...
[+] [-] jerlam|1 year ago|reply
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
[+] [-] gnicholas|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dharmatech|1 year ago|reply
https://maps.app.goo.gl/auZYzygWnnynvHiA9
[+] [-] bombcar|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] droopyEyelids|1 year ago|reply
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
[+] [-] AlbertCory|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dclowd9901|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Xeoncross|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] yborg|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] bombcar|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] loeg|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]