Forums: BASE Jumping: General BASE:
yosemite legal- what would happen
Premier Sponsor:

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

veryformal

Mar 5, 2013, 1:02 AM
Post #1 of 98 (23870 views)
Shortcut
yosemite legal- what would happen Can't Post

a new kjerag ? is it as accesible as the divingboard or a hike like kalskraa, never been to yosemite

hjumper33
Moderator
Mar 5, 2013, 6:56 PM
Post #2 of 98 (23600 views)
Shortcut
Re: [veryformal] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

Some people jumped el cap in the 70s, and maybe someones jumped halfdome, Im not sure. I think they have guards at those two, and theyre the only jumpable things in that valley.

DAVE858

Mar 5, 2013, 8:47 PM
Post #3 of 98 (23536 views)
Shortcut
Re: [veryformal] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

I think we will cure fucking AIDS before this happens. If it did happen, & it wont, then it would be the most regulated strictly enforced BASE site in the world. It is like that now for hang gliders & for good reason. Yosemite is a treasure & should be cherished & any activity involving flight in any aspect should be approached with the utmost respect for the environment & the community of people who share that environment. BASE jumpers have burned too many bridges here. I think that climbing & hang gliding would be illegal as well if it were not for tradition & good standing amongst Park Officials. In our Lawsuit ridden sick fucking society, why would anyone want to take a chance on a bunch of idiots who jump off shit for fun? & we are idiots, you cannot argue otherwise.

try2live

Mar 5, 2013, 9:16 PM
Post #4 of 98 (23514 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DAVE858] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

I would gather all my buddies in a big truck, drive to the top and have a huge bonfire to celebrate.

hjumper33
Moderator
Mar 6, 2013, 7:30 AM
Post #5 of 98 (23323 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DAVE858] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

Yah honestly, there is no reason for them to legalize it. It wont make them any more money, and they already have tourists bumper to bumper the the park during the high season. Whats the incentive for them?

Shotface

Mar 6, 2013, 9:59 PM
Post #6 of 98 (23080 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DAVE858] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

A child born with HIV has been effectively cured http://m.guardiannews.com/...-cure-child-born-hiv
I'm gonna go get those exits soon

RickHarrison

Mar 8, 2013, 9:54 PM
Post #7 of 98 (22768 views)
Shortcut
Re: [veryformal] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

Sorry man, the USBA and even the ABP have worked for years talking to the the NPS. Too much bad blood from the old days, and just when they were mellowing after Sue O bounced several years before, the group with Tom S and Jan D and others were escorted by the rangers to the top and everyone knew it was a demo protest jump to prove how safe El Cap was so they would consider a permit program. El Cap is as safe as any big wall in Europe. BUT, as you likely know, Jan bounced big time by never finding the pilot chute at all, even after 2 or 3 quick attemps at grabs and about 17 sedconds later using borrowed gear with a different pilot chute location she bounced vividly. That plus the Sue Ottens fatality, which decapitated her just a few years earlier which happened just a couple days before The USBA, written by Jean Boenish sent a well written Environmental Assessment that I reviewd from a legal standpoint, to the NPS to start a permit process rather than let folks die jumping borrowed gear at night sneaking away from rangers. Well the Environmental Assessment hit their mailbox the Monday after Ottens bounced, which I hear was really ugly as she scrapped the wall for a long time and lost her fingerprints and head, so I'm guessing our Env assessment went in the trash. We were getting hopeful until Jan D bounced. The NPS admin staff were now mostly from the administrative ranks rather than the law enforcement background so we figured we had a chance at a new beginning, but that stopped that. My personal opinion, I'm sure is going to be controversial with some, but I feel on a demo jump to prove how safe it is, the jumpers should have all been current and jumping their own familiar gear even if it was going to get confiscated for up to a year. It was stupid to let her go with a borrowed rig with a different PC location from what she was used to and she was not current. She went back for that pilot chute about 3 times, but never turned on her back to find the damn thing. Sorry Tom, but it's my feeling that it set back any positive efforts for years just when the sport was getting safer and more visible.
On the question do we really want Yosemite legal. Yes I do for selfish reasons and because some of my good friends are wingsuiters who would love to bring the WWL and wingsuit BASE to the US mountains. Since I have 30 years exp. in BASE and 11 more in RW skydiving, I would love to learn more about BASE wingsuiting in the US. BUT in reality, Joy and I have issued BASE numbers since they were at 540 well over 15 years ago and have seem many new BASEers who have very little to no terminal experience and see You Tube and think it's a circus act they could do without real skydiving training. Right now, it may be best to keep it illegal to keep what I call whuffo urban BASE jumpers off of big wallst till they get more airtime and terminal control. Otherwise, we'll just waste another 30 years to jump big walls in the US. My bro and I were in Norway in 99 with Thor Alex when he died and the NY Post interviewed us and I told them why we have to come from the land of the "FREE" to jump the big walls in Norway. Anyway, sorry if I hurt a few feelings, but it's my opinion.
Rick H
Director USBA
BASE 38
Rick

RayLosli

Mar 8, 2013, 10:08 PM
Post #8 of 98 (22762 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hjumper33] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Just because they make sufficient funds from selling admission tickets like Disney land & revenue from issuing DWI's to campers . That does not make it right .
When your Government passes law making BASE Jump illegal, as well as other activities that involve use of land and air that is your public property . You are all free to covertly participate in that activity without regard to law and behave freely as the criminals they paint you to be .
.

RickHarrison

Mar 9, 2013, 8:06 PM
Post #9 of 98 (22603 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RayLosli] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey man, I agree that civil disobedience is and always has been a vital part of American culture. It helps Congress or agencies get off their asses and change things that may really need changing like the Jim Crow laws in the 50's and 60's. Go for it, just do us all a favor and pay attention to detail not to get hurt or busted. BASE is becoming more acceptable and bad incidents on Govt. lands just hardens their positions and they love to have excuses to hate us.

StealthyB

Mar 10, 2013, 5:50 AM
Post #10 of 98 (22497 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RickHarrison] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Rick,
A great assessment of the quandary of legalizing BASE in the National Parks.
Robin Heid's efforts are not well known to the newer jumpers, but as you know he was targeting the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park in the hopes of establishing a test ground for legal BASE.
As someone who is very familiar with that location, (wonderful Trout fishing at the base of the wall, which I believe you are familiar with), I used to cringe at the thought of jumpers with minimal Big wall skills, and marginal canopy experience, being unleashed in that environment.
With today's propensity for jumpers experienced only in the short delay BASE environment to see themselves as capable of moving rapidly into the Big Wall, Wingsuit, environment, would unfortunately turn Yosemite into the Luaterbrunnen of the US and it's not hard to imagine the carnage that would ensue.
You have the unique perspective of analyzing the skills of a large segment of today's jumpers.
It's really time that we accept that with current Wingsuit flying having reached the level it has, and the trends reflected on the BFL,that we can no longer view just any BASE jumper as qualifying for all aspects of the sport.
To open Yosemite and the parks to modern BASE would not be as simple as the efforts of Joe Svec in 1980, today it would require making distinctions and regulating jumpers in regards to skills, and no organisation presently exists that could convince the NPS that they qualify for that role.
Unfortunately, given the difficulties of controlling the jumpers travelling to the Swiss Valley, Big Wall BASE in the US is destined to remain in it's present Limbo.
Respect and thanks for all yours and Joy's efforts, Regards B.

juced442

Mar 10, 2013, 11:56 AM
Post #11 of 98 (22387 views)
Shortcut
Re: [StealthyB] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

 Fortunately there is no organization to control or regulate base jumpers in regards to their skill level..

RickHarrison

Mar 10, 2013, 8:24 PM
Post #12 of 98 (22285 views)
Shortcut
Re: [StealthyB] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

Park Service had the same dilemma at New River in about 84 or 85, when they bought, (using eminent domain), the John Dragon (rafter guy) land at the landing area. Once it was a National Park Service property they would love to have closed it but it brought way too much money into a poor state so a W. VA Senator helped. Their problem was how to regulate who could jump without assuming the liabilities for making decisions like that not knowing anything about BASE jumping. By then, Carl had died and I was helping Jean some to convince the NPS to let us, the USBA have the permit and not give individual permits to the jumpers. That way we decided and their grant of this authority allowed us to actually tell a one jump whuffo not to go and he would not be covered by the permit and could be charged. This worked until in the early 90's when an person I will not name, cooperated with the NPS and agreed to furnish photo ID's of all the jumpers for years. Jean refused as did I and the next year the NPS helped convince the local Govt to let this unnamed person run bridge day. Jean and I said go for it. USBA fought individual ID's for about 8 years, but the NPS knew we were using the success of Bridge Day against them to get Yosemite legal since Bridge Day had a good safety record for the most part. Here we are almost 30 years later and I think it'll be a while before the NPS allows jumping unless it's well sponsored, (Hey Red Bull), since all the agencies are needing money.

78RATS

Mar 12, 2013, 7:01 AM
Post #13 of 98 (21948 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RickHarrison] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

You hit it Rick. Show government money and you will get what you want.

robinheid

Mar 20, 2013, 9:56 AM
Post #14 of 98 (21506 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RickHarrison] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

RickHarrison wrote:
Sorry man, the USBA and even the ABP have worked for years talking to the the NPS. Too much bad blood from the old days, and just when they were mellowing after Sue O bounced several years before, the group with Tom S and Jan D and others were escorted by the rangers to the top and everyone knew it was a demo protest jump to prove how safe El Cap was so they would consider a permit program. El Cap is as safe as any big wall in Europe. BUT, as you likely know, Jan bounced big time by never finding the pilot chute at all, even after 2 or 3 quick attemps at grabs and about 17 sedconds later using borrowed gear with a different pilot chute location she bounced vividly. That plus the Sue Ottens fatality, which decapitated her just a few years earlier which happened just a couple days before The USBA, written by Jean Boenish sent a well written Environmental Assessment that I reviewd from a legal standpoint, to the NPS to start a permit process rather than let folks die jumping borrowed gear at night sneaking away from rangers. Well the Environmental Assessment hit their mailbox the Monday after Ottens bounced, which I hear was really ugly as she scrapped the wall for a long time and lost her fingerprints and head, so I'm guessing our Env assessment went in the trash. We were getting hopeful until Jan D bounced. The NPS admin staff were now mostly from the administrative ranks rather than the law enforcement background so we figured we had a chance at a new beginning, but that stopped that. My personal opinion, I'm sure is going to be controversial with some, but I feel on a demo jump to prove how safe it is, the jumpers should have all been current and jumping their own familiar gear even if it was going to get confiscated for up to a year. It was stupid to let her go with a borrowed rig with a different PC location from what she was used to and she was not current. She went back for that pilot chute about 3 times, but never turned on her back to find the damn thing. Sorry Tom, but it's my feeling that it set back any positive efforts for years just when the sport was getting safer and more visible.
On the question do we really want Yosemite legal. Yes I do for selfish reasons and because some of my good friends are wingsuiters who would love to bring the WWL and wingsuit BASE to the US mountains. Since I have 30 years exp. in BASE and 11 more in RW skydiving, I would love to learn more about BASE wingsuiting in the US. BUT in reality, Joy and I have issued BASE numbers since they were at 540 well over 15 years ago and have seem many new BASEers who have very little to no terminal experience and see You Tube and think it's a circus act they could do without real skydiving training. Right now, it may be best to keep it illegal to keep what I call whuffo urban BASE jumpers off of big wallst till they get more airtime and terminal control. Otherwise, we'll just waste another 30 years to jump big walls in the US. My bro and I were in Norway in 99 with Thor Alex when he died and the NY Post interviewed us and I told them why we have to come from the land of the "FREE" to jump the big walls in Norway. Anyway, sorry if I hurt a few feelings, but it's my opinion.
Rick H
Director USBA
BASE 38
Rick

Sorry, Rick, while I concur with your concluding musing that it may be best to let lying dogs sleep for a while in terms of trying to open up US national parks to backcountry parachuting, I must correct you on two serious factual errors you made in your comments:

1) Jan's currency and borrowed gear. Compared to today's BASE jumpers with hundreds of Perrine jumps and/or boatloads of big wall jumps made in Europe, she didn't have a lot of jumps. However, she was a highly experienced professional parachutist with more than enough jumps and currency to make a long tracking jump from El Capitan. Period. Full stop.

Moreover, while her current rig had a BOC pilot chute, she had made between 1/3 and 1/2 of all her jumps with a leg-strap-mounted PC, so she had leg strap muscle memory and mental awareness at least equal to her BOC muscle memory/mental awareness. Even more importantly, many of Jan's jumps were stunt jumps for movies that involved wearing totally custom, completely outside-the-bell-curve skydiving equipment. Ergo, Jan was, in fact, more qualified and experienced than anyone else on that load to jump a borrowed rig with a deployment system on which she'd already made hundreds of jumps. Period. Full stop.

Why she couldn't or didn't pull is an enduring mystery and not explainable by any conventional means. I watched multiple videos of the whole thing multiple times and it makes no sense whatever. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

But that's another conversation.

2. The purpose of the jump. It was not a demonstration jump made "to prove how safe El Cap was so they would consider a permit program." We had already demonstrated during the previous 22 years that BASE jumping in Yosemite, even under outlaw conditions, was unarguably no more dangerous than the other dangerous sports already allowed in the park and arguably less dangerous than some of the activities. Most notable among the latter: walking on slick rocks in street shoes next to runoff-swollen rivers, which results in more fatalities each year in Yosemite than there have been total BASE fatalities since 1978!).

The purpose on the 1999 jump was solely and only to protest the discrimination being visited upon jumpers by its non-fact-based prohibition, and to focus public attention thereon.

I know this because I was one of the event designers.

I know this because I wrote the press releases explaining its purpose and I wrote the ten talking points Jan (and some of the others) rehearsed on their hike to the top.

I was also the person who distributed the press releases to the Associated Press reporter and other media outlets ahead of the event.

Unfortunately, when Jan went in, the moron AP reporter (I know, I know, "moron reporter" is redundant) didn't write his story based on what was written in the press release -- or even based on interviews with people associated with the event; he literally turned to some random people next to him who may or may not have even been jumpers and asked them what they thought the jumpers were trying to accomplish and those random people said some variation on "D'uh, I dunno, I guess prove that it was safe?"

And then that became his lead and then the rest of the media picked it up and now even one of the oldest and most savvy BASE jumpers in the world is repeating it.

Sigh...

Unfortunately, I had another commitment and was not able to be there in person, and when the group leader declined to jump after Jan went in, there was no spokesman on the ground to set the moron straight, so this silliness about "they did it to prove it was safe" persists.

And it absolutely is silliness because no one in their right mind would try to "prove" that BASE jumping is "safe."

In fact, we went to great lengths in the press releases and talking points to make it clear that we were not claiming it was safe, but instead calling for an end to the discrimination against us and to let us take our place alongside the other dangerous activities that are allowed, such as rock climbing, slack roping, bouldering and on the aforementioned walking slick rocks in street shoes next to runoff-swollen rivers.

Cool
BASE 44
Founding Secretary, U.S. BASE Association
Founder, Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists

P.S. The other high-profile death was not Sue Ottens. Her name was Sue Oatley and she died in 1993, after losing control during her launch and hitting the wall, which came after lying to her mentor and others about her parachuting experience. That fatality was indeed a case of being in way over her head.


(This post was edited by robinheid on Mar 20, 2013, 10:38 AM)

robinheid

Mar 20, 2013, 10:35 AM
Post #15 of 98 (21474 views)
Shortcut
Re: [StealthyB] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

StealthyB wrote:
Hi Rick,
A great assessment of the quandary of legalizing BASE in the National Parks.
Robin Heid's efforts are not well known to the newer jumpers, but as you know he was targeting the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park in the hopes of establishing a test ground for legal BASE.
As someone who is very familiar with that location, (wonderful Trout fishing at the base of the wall, which I believe you are familiar with), I used to cringe at the thought of jumpers with minimal Big wall skills, and marginal canopy experience, being unleashed in that environment.
With today's propensity for jumpers experienced only in the short delay BASE environment to see themselves as capable of moving rapidly into the Big Wall, Wingsuit, environment, would unfortunately turn Yosemite into the Luaterbrunnen of the US and it's not hard to imagine the carnage that would ensue.
You have the unique perspective of analyzing the skills of a large segment of today's jumpers.
It's really time that we accept that with current Wingsuit flying having reached the level it has, and the trends reflected on the BFL,that we can no longer view just any BASE jumper as qualifying for all aspects of the sport.
To open Yosemite and the parks to modern BASE would not be as simple as the efforts of Joe Svec in 1980, today it would require making distinctions and regulating jumpers in regards to skills, and no organisation presently exists that could convince the NPS that they qualify for that role.
Unfortunately, given the difficulties of controlling the jumpers travelling to the Swiss Valley, Big Wall BASE in the US is destined to remain in it's present Limbo.
Respect and thanks for all yours and Joy's efforts, Regards B.

Thanks for the kudos and kind words, but the idea of "making distinctions and regulating jumpers in regards to skills" is exactly what doomed jumping in NPS-occupied territory in the first place!

Rock climbers are not regulated and neither should we be. In fact, your argument that "(i)t's really time that we accept that with current Wingsuit flying having reached the level it has, and the trends reflected on the BFL, that we can no longer view just any BASE jumper as qualifying for all aspects of the sport" was argued out in Yosemite and Rocky Mountain National Park in the 1950s and 1960s, when advances in climbing techniques and equipment led the NPS to ban rock climbing because it was getting too dangerous with all that newfangled stuff that is now old hat and SOP.

The very fact that we as a community, via USPA, accepted the idea that we needed to be regulated and supervised to safely jump from one cliff between 8 and 10 in the morning on weekdays led the idea that we were not independently capable of acting responsibly and safely in "that environment."

Contrast that with the fact that literally anybody can try to climb El Cap or Half Dome or any other big wall in Yosemite - a.n.y.b.o.d.y.

And they do. Most of them don't get very far before they hurt themselves or back off, but sometimes they get far enough up a wall that they have to be rescued at great expense and risk to the rescuers. And guess what? When they do, they get charged with reckless endangerment or disorderly conduct when Ranger Rick finds out that they were climbing whuffos.

In other words, the system already exists to handle the dipstick crowd, and the great thing about BASE is that the ones who really screw up are for the most part easy to police up at the bottom of a given wall -- no "search" or "rescue" needed.

It is ironic how often BASE jumpers claim that BASE is "a separate sport" from skydiving -- then they want to impose skydiving-like regulation and supervision over the activity! Keep in mind too that skydiving is regulated and supervised the way it is because it is an aviation-based sport, and its regulatory and supervisory structure is derived from the aviation model.

We need to conduct BASE jumping on the backcountry model; i.e., be prepared, know your limits, be responsible for yourself and be a good steward of the natural world in which you operate.

Because, guess what? It all does come down to money. Contrary to popular legend, neither the Flatbed Ten nor the morons who spray painted rocks and pooped on the trails caused the trial program to shut down and prohibition set in its place. What shut it down was that we, in our skydiving-aviation mindset, insisted that we needed to be regulated and meet certain requirements before it was okay to let us jump.

This meant rangers had to be tasked with babysitting us -- checking logbooks, making sure we had the USPA-required licenses, helmets and equipment - and guess what? They ended up using more manpower each day to handle 10 jumpers than they did on the hundreds-strong rest of the daily backcountry crowd combined.

This led to then-Yosemite superintendent Bob Binneweis to declare in the November 1980 issue of Audubon Magazine that "we had to open it up to be able to regulate it at all... now that we know what the result is, our management ban will stick."

That is what we got by thinking like city geek skydivers instead of backcountry recreationists, and we're still paying for it, so what we need to do is strip away the last vestiges of that aviation regulatory model from our minds and start thinking like people who understand the backcountry.

Cool
BASE 44
Founding Secretary, US BASE Association
Founder, Alliance of Backcountry Prachutists

RickHarrison

Mar 20, 2013, 2:11 PM
Post #16 of 98 (21393 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Robin, I didn't mean to stir your tail feathers so much.
I will defer to you on the facts as to the reason the Jan Davis jump was scheduled as a protest, but the fact is, with a one parachute rig, I and many other experienced jumpers would have been over on our backs to find that pilot chute. She made no such attempt. I myself jump a BOC and when I went to Norway in 99, my first jump I used my old leg strap pouch skydiving rig and it shifted and I had to look back and make 2 grabs. Bottom line, she bounced in a stable spread, so she wasn't current enough. I totally agree nowadays there are a lot of new jumpers wanting to do this without sufficient air time in order to just react and not have to think in an emergency and that is one reason the fatality rate is climbing. That should not be happening with the quality of the gear today. I'm not even trying to say she was less experienced than some newbies.
I also apologize if you took it to mean we should not try to continue to talk to the NPS, but my point was about Yosemite. When that accident happened, the NPS admin personnel were beginning to loosen up a bit or they wouldn't even have escorted the group to the top and allowed the jump at all. That accident put our efforts back years.
On Sue, when she went in by backsliding in freefall into the wall, Jean Boenish had spent months preparing an Environmental Impact Statement, with a little advice from me, that clearly made the case for allowing legal jumps rather than jumpers sneaking around at night with borrowed gear. That EIS arrived in their mail the Monday after Sue went in. Well, you can imagine that the EIS went in the trash. Anyway, the net result was that the NPS likely felt pretty vulnerable after they allowed the protest jump which resulted in a fatality. While I hate the sneaking part of the deal, I also agree that we should be treated like climbers and the NPS should simply stay out of the business of regulating us. Given the climate of our times, that is not likely. I do support the goals of the ABP as you know since I was your General Counsel for awhile and feel that we should decide for ourselves if we choose to jump. It would be much better for the NPS from a legal standpoint rather than to try to regulate an activity they cannot hope to fully understand. BLM has the right approach just to stay out of the fray, but if too many "idiots" start bouncing, you know as well as I what will happen, even at Perrine or Moab. We have to do a better job of regulating ourselves unless we only want to see legal jumps backed by big sponsors.
Take care my friend and sorry for my factual errors as to the reason the Jan jump was scheduled.

RickHarrison

Mar 20, 2013, 2:19 PM
Post #17 of 98 (21392 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RickHarrison] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey Robin, by the way, I sure would appreciate you using another name other than, "Ranger Rick"
Had to BS you on that one.
RICK Harrison.

BASE1361

Mar 20, 2013, 3:02 PM
Post #18 of 98 (21361 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RickHarrison] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I also agree that we should be treated like climbers

Rick.... are you sure about this??

ANY climber in Yosemite gets tOOled by the tOOl. Climbers are treated worse than vermin. Illegal s/s, road side stops, tickets ect.... it's bad.

Climbers are (palestinians) occupying (Yosemite) Jerusalem. Even though all wall climbers have some Jewish in them since they area able to suffer.

RickHarrison

Mar 20, 2013, 3:24 PM
Post #19 of 98 (21336 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BASE1361] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

At least climbers and even whuffos are allowed to try to climb without any permits, or at least it used to be that way. We have never been allowed to jump, and they won't issue the aerial delivery permit. From that standpoint at least climbers can do their sport in Yosemite, jumpers cannot.

robinheid

Mar 20, 2013, 3:53 PM
Post #20 of 98 (21326 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RickHarrison] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

LOL... you didn't stir my tail feathers; I was just setting straight a long-inaccurate record precipitated by the moron AP reporter (I know, I know, redundant) who completely ignored our "official" press release and people associated with the event and asked random passersby what the jump was for, as if he had not already been told in detail, and didn't know which people on the ground were specifically associated with it.

You do, however, need to quit beating the dead Jan. You assert:

"Bottom line, she bounced in a stable spread, so she wasn't current enough."

The fundamental fallacy of your assertion can be found in the fact that when any of us bounce for any reason making any kind of jump, it can be asserted that we either weren't "current enough." Or "skillful enough." Or "fill-in-the-blank enough." That's not news, and it is most assuredly not analysis. It is a useless opinion based on the utterly obvious: When we die, we were clearly not up to task of staying alive on that particular jump for some reason. Period. Full stop.

The secondary fallacy of your assertion lies in the fact that multiple videos show otherwise: She did in fact repeatedly seek her pilot chute, not find it, go back to a stable spread, try again, then sort of cross her arms in front of her face right before impact. In fact, from the video evidence it can be argued that she was "current enough" to know exactly where she was and that it was too late to do anything except relax and go in gracefully instead of screaming and flailing -- which would, in fact, be consistent with her personality.

Ergo, currency was not at work here. Period. Full stop.

Something else was going on and we will never know what it was, but given the video evidence and all the associated factors, it is absurd to assert that she died because "she wasn't current enough."

So, take care, my friend, and sorry to take you to task for your factual errors as to the reason Jan died, but she deserves better from you than she's getting on this one.

"Bottom line," the proximate cause of her death -- and Frank Gambalie III's -- was neither currency nor pilot chute location but the reckless and zealous discrimination practiced against our community by an agency of the US federal government. Both were casualties of this war still being waged against us and it on that where our focus should be, not on the sort of operational details that are more appropriate for the Incidents forum.

Frown
44

robinheid

Mar 20, 2013, 4:01 PM
Post #21 of 98 (21318 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RickHarrison] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

RickHarrison wrote:
Hey Robin, by the way, I sure would appreciate you using another name other than, "Ranger Rick"
Had to BS you on that one.
RICK Harrison.

Okay, Ranger Randy then... oh, wait...

Guess we'll just have to go with Ranger TOOL from now on.

Yeahhh, that's it!

Cool
44

RickHarrison

Mar 20, 2013, 4:34 PM
Post #22 of 98 (21307 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

I must agree. We can all have a lapse and get hurt or worse. Hell, Carl was pretty current when he went in and he had more air time than most in the world for those days. As we know, in BASE, split seconds come pretty fast. Sorry to Jan's friends but when I watch that video on Carnage, it still sickens me. I hope I would have done the right thing, but no point in second guessing. Take care my friend and hope we get to go back to China.
Rick

TomAiello

Mar 20, 2013, 4:40 PM
Post #23 of 98 (21293 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

robinheid wrote:
"Bottom line," the proximate cause of her death -- and Frank Gambalie III's -- was neither currency nor pilot chute location but the reckless and zealous discrimination practiced against our community by an agency of the US federal government.

I don't buy that.

I'll accept that the NPS policy was a contributory cause of both deaths, but not the proximate cause.

The proximate cause of Jan's death was her inability to find her PC.

The proximate cause of Frank's death was his decision to jump into the river rather than be arrested.

BASE jumping is an adult activity. We have a right to make adult decisions about whether we wish to risk our own lives.

Our own decisions are usually the largest factor in the outcomes--as they should be.

To claim that the proximate cause of a fatality was a government policy that was ordained years in advance of that fatality is both incorrect and juvenile.

Frank and Jan knew exactly what they were risking, and made their own decisions knowing full well the possible consequences. Let's not disrespect their memories by claiming they entered into the situations with less than full disclosure, or that they made less than adult decisions.


(This post was edited by TomAiello on Mar 20, 2013, 4:41 PM)

robinheid

Mar 20, 2013, 5:28 PM
Post #24 of 98 (21265 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomAiello] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

TomAiello wrote:
robinheid wrote:
"Bottom line," the proximate cause of her death -- and Frank Gambalie III's -- was neither currency nor pilot chute location but the reckless and zealous discrimination practiced against our community by an agency of the US federal government.

I don't buy that.

I'll accept that the NPS policy was a contributory cause of both deaths, but not the proximate cause.

The proximate cause of Jan's death was her inability to find her PC.

The proximate cause of Frank's death was his decision to jump into the river rather than be arrested.

BASE jumping is an adult activity. We have a right to make adult decisions about whether we wish to risk our own lives.

Our own decisions are usually the largest factor in the outcomes--as they should be.

To claim that the proximate cause of a fatality was a government policy that was ordained years in advance of that fatality is both incorrect and juvenile.

Frank and Jan knew exactly what they were risking, and made their own decisions knowing full well the possible consequences. Let's not disrespect their memories by claiming they entered into the situations with less than full disclosure, or that they made less than adult decisions.

LOL... demolish that straw man, Tom!

I knew somebody would bag on me for my political polemics here, but enough with manufacturing between your ears something I never said or implied -- "claiming they entered into the situations with less than full disclosure, or that they made less than adult decisions."

I assert and stand by the notion that the proximate cause of both deaths was the reckless and zealous discrimination against us by the National Park Service. Here for your further education on the subject is an explanation of the term so that next time you hear it you will not be so unhinged by its appearance that you fabricate and then attribute to me things that I never said or implied:

Proximate cause

"Proximate cause is the primary cause of an injury. It is not necessarily the closest cause in time or space nor the first event that sets in motion a sequence of events leading to an injury. Proximate cause produces particular, foreseeable consequences without the intervention of any independent or unforeseeable cause. It is also known as legal cause.

To help determine the proximate cause of an injury in Negligence or other tort cases, courts have devised the 'but for' or 'sine qua non' rule, which considers whether the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent act. A finding that an injury would not have occurred but for a defendant's act establishes that the particular act or omission is the proximate cause of the harm, but it does not necessarily establish liability since a variety of other factors can come into play in tort actions.

Some jurisdictions apply the 'substantial factor' formula to determine proximate cause. This rule considers whether the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in producing the harm. If the act was a substantial factor in bringing about the damage, then the defendant will be held liable unless she can raise a sufficient defense to rebut the claims."


Ergo, sine qua non, their deaths would not have occurred but for the National Park Service's negligent act, to wit: its reckless and zealous discrimination against us. Its conduct was unarguably a substantial factor in their deaths.

So I say again, NPS discrimination against our community was the proximate cause of both Frank's and Jan's death, irrespective of whatever technical and/or judgmental error occurred at the end of their respective event trains.

Cool
44

TomAiello

Mar 20, 2013, 5:45 PM
Post #25 of 98 (21252 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] yosemite legal- what would happen [In reply to] Can't Post

robinheid wrote:
I assert and stand by the notion that the proximate cause of both deaths was the reckless and zealous discrimination against us by the National Park Service.

You really want to have a legal argument? That wasn't my intention, but if you want to go full lawyer;

The main test for proximate causation used in the American legal system is the test of foreseeable consequences. In a nutshell, it asks if the harm could have been "reasonably foreseen" as a result of the purported cause.

In this case, your purported cause is the NPS prohibition on BASE, and it's enforcement.

So, were we 1L's in a Torts class, we'd ask ourselves, "is the death of a BASE jumper a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the NPS prohibition of BASE and it's enforcement?"

You're going to have a hard time convincing a court that prohibiting an activity and enforcing the ban actually causes people to get hurt while participating in that activity. You'd just as well argue that laws against drunk driving cause people to crash their cars while driving drunk.

Justice Heid, I must dissent.


(This post was edited by TomAiello on Mar 20, 2013, 5:46 PM)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : BASE Jumping : General BASE

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?

D4DR Media