<center><font size="1" color="#ff0000">LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-99 AT 09:56 PM (EST)</font></center>
I would like to introduct a new license proposal to everyone. This standard is applicable world wide.
I have been working on this for about 2 months now. I am looking for constructive feedback ASAP.
Mick...
There is a new version at:
The License Document:
http://www.baselogic.com/ibf/license.html
This may sound good to some people that already have lots of BASE experience, but really--licenses for BASE?? I agree that it would cut down on the number of accidents for beginners, but even the best can have screwups now and then. That's life--or death, in the BASE world. Isn't the nature of the sport freedom anyways? Would you then have a proposal for "slots" at certain cliffs. What would be the fines for jumpers breaking these regulations and who would enforce them? One more thing, are you saying that you have never jumped alone with no ground crew???? Just a few thoughts........
Yo !
Mick, given the ultimate and absolute goal which is legalizing cliff jumping in US national parks, your program makes a lot of sense and is a piece of work. I do see a few problems with it, though.
First, my body's physical responce: i have almost puked! While i understand all the logical reasons, my stomach just couldn't help it. The most beautiful sensation i experience while BASE jumping is the total, unhuman freedom that i cannot feel anywhere else. This freedom is somewhat limited by common sense - a compromise i have to accept to survive the jump and enjoy my life beyond a pull time. This is the best compromise i have found so far. I like to think about BASE as an art, not a sport. The way i see and experience BASE simply cannot be put in the rigid and cold borders of A, B, C and D licenses - even if there is a Pro rating to sweeten the pie ;) Freedom doesn't exist in a cage.
Second, and probably the only important one: the enforcement. There will be jumpers - maybe a lot, maybe just a few, who will neither like nor follow the rules for reasons that may or may not be understood by others. This means that the rules will be broken the way these jumpers will see fit. What do you propose to do in this situation ? I would really hate to see a fist- or a gunfight on top of El CapIn a way, it is better to break a bad government law as opposed to a bad rule set by [misguided] but still your fellow jumpers. An evil common enemy unifies BASE "nation", while a civil war weakens it.
By the way, there is no enforcement for whatever rules that do exist at Kjerag. If you don't follow them, you will be on your own - that's as far as it goes.
There is a lot more to it, though. Take Norway (and Europe in general) as an example. The common sense rules the place. The matter of regulations has been discussed a lot, and the decision that wins (and works very good) is "NO RULES", unless you are a first jump student. Of course, this is a thin line: it isn't far from a "first jump student" to a full rating and license system ;) This is where common sense comes to play once again. Where you draw the line depends on a society around, as far as i see it. In Europe, it is acceptable to endanger your life and die for whatever reasons you choose while in US it is not. This point is well illustrated by a discussion we had with Norwegian cops that came to pick the body after the last fatality at Kjerag:
In a few words, they accept the fact that 4 people have died at Kjerag and more will go in and get injuried as time goes by. They understand that what we do is our life, and it is unethical (and impossible) to prohibit us to live it. They have simply asked that we keep jumping at Kjerag, where it is easy to pick up the body or rescue the injured, instead of dying at Troll where any rescue is a complicated nightmare.
In US, Reckless Endangerment charges are known to be applied when the only person in danger have been yourself. It is generally not acceptable to let people endanger themselves, and the task to save "fools" from their own actions lays in the hands of elected government officials.
A fine example is Prekestolen: a beautifull rock high enough for a very pleasant BASE jump, which also happens to be a major tourist attraction. Thousands of people come there, sit on the edge, play with kids and go back home - alive and well despite of the fact there is no electric fence guarding them from the long fall down. Could you even imaging seing something like that in US ?
To sum it up, in a given legal and (more importantly) cultural situation in US the rules and regulations required to satisfy the government will not be acceptable to a big fraction of the jumping community. What fun is it going to be to watch "legal" and "illegal" jumpers blaming each other for ruining the sport - both sides being right, based on their own points of view!
In the end, "illigals" will keep jumping the way they have always done - using common sense as the only rule. I'm afraid the government here won't stand it. We are dreaming about free autobahns of Europe, but what we are likely to get is a heavily enforced 55mph speed limit. What fun is it when you grew up on a race track ?
bsbd!
Yuri.
There are thousands of jumps worldwide that will never require a permit or a license of any kind.
However, there are hundreds, if not thousands of jumps in the US, Norway and Australia that will never be legal without the strict guidlines of a rating system.
I am not saying that a rating system is going to save us from every accident. I am saying that incidents like the PG&E Tower (sorry Bonnie), could have been avoided by the realization of abilities as set forth in a licensing system. I am speaking about students and low time jumpers here.
I have only made one jump by myself with out ground crew. I will never do that again. This is a very stupid point to try to make here! Look at Wayne Crill. If wayne would have adhered to such a system and had one WUFFO at the car waiting, he would not have all the problems he has now. Heck, if he would have taken a little more time understanding elevation, wind and the condition of his gear, this also might not have happend. I am not ragging on Wayne or Bonnie. All I know about these 2 accidents, is there was at least 1 thing I saw that could have made the situation better.
At least Bonnie had ground crew. She may have fallen to her death if she had hung up there all night.
Nobody is going to force you to adhere to this license. The reason for this is many people (I get the feeling you apply here), just don't know any better because of some unwritten BSBD!
The only way I see the BASE community getting certain sites legalized and managed correctly, is to write a guidline as far as what is right, wrong or a grey area.
With this effort, maybe we can get more legal sites and less accidents with the increased number of jumps.
The fact is, BASE jumping is not going away. The more people that participate in the unwritten manner, the more poeple are going to get hurt.
The more information these new people have, the more jumps they can make without icident. I HOPE!
But I feel that there is more than a thinline between "student" and "pro" jumper.
Th difference is experience. Not just one or 6 jumps. Yuri, you have over 500 BASE jumps. How long did it take you?
A student can't go to a cliff and make 1,000 BASE jumps like they can in skydiving.
I am not proposing taking away any freedom, I just think that that freedom comes at a price! That price is dedication and knowledge of the sport. Not just big balls and Vodka.
Freedom is not forcing rules upon everyone so there is no freedom left. That is why I put this out for everyone to look at. I need help. I want to see less accidents in the sport due to stupidity. That means FORCING jumpers to be competent. Not just gung-ho.
Is there anyone who has a comment, addition, deletion or has re-written part of this to help me?
Yuri, do you drink Vodka? lol I'm not sure where Mick was going with that. At any rate, you summed it up better than I could. Yes, we want legalized cliffs in our parks. No, I don't think a rating system can possibly work. Example: Many of the sites you list are always going to be illegal. Your rating entity would be nullified by virtue of law. The government does not recognize organizations that engage in illegal activities, unless you count RICO, which is probably what they would use to seize names, lists, etc. I'll keep the low profile, and push my representatives for a permitting system. No offense Mick, you mean well and invested lot's of time in your document, and are truly leading many efforts in the base community. However, even if this were feasible, it would probably have the effect Yuri predicts.
Tree
Mick, Thank you for your efforts. I don't think that in the larger scheme of things there can be much debate that some form of jumper rating is needed to lend credibility to our group as a whole, and to some degree, help clarify boundries for those who are unsure of their own limitations. However, a rating program's largest function is not to prevent accidents but to give our group a way to quantify jumper experience for whuffo consumption. It has more to do with access than safety.
Over the last 6 years some of the most experienced BASE jumpers in the country have been attempting to address these same issues under the guise of the CJAA. The reason you havn't seen a formal system generated by the CJAA is that it is a complex issue that cannot be solved by laying down a series of demanding and confining restrictions, regulations and limitations. We went down the same road you are on now and I would be happy to share with you why our countless hours of debate and discussion did not generate a viable program.
I have a lot of feed back for you on your proposal and have been asking for several months since first seeing it that you make some time when we could constuctively discuss it.
Mick your energy and enthusiasm are valuable assets to the BASE community. I don't want to deflate your enthusiasm only temper it. I'm willing, as I'm sure others are, to help you mold this proposal into something viable. Unfortunately, It is presently so far off base (no pun intended) that you risk credibility by going public with it.
A rating program is no more than words on paper unless it is adopted by the majority of jumpers.
Please call me and we can constructively discuss this further.
Adam Filippino
http://www.crmojo.com
i've printed your proposal and am in the process of relining it now.
i'll find some way to email it to you.
i'm spending considerable time on my comments.
i hope you take the time to consider them when you see them.
thanks,
kleggo
Yo !
Mick, my comments were not intended to undermine your efforts. You put more energy into BASE world than most people combined. I was trying to make the point that sometimes the energy itself is not enough to do the job - it has to be applied in the right place and form. Here's more:
>Freedom is not forcing rules upon everyone so >there is no freedom left. That is why I put this >out for everyone to look at. I need help. I want >to see less accidents in the sport due to >stupidity. That means FORCING jumpers to be >competent. Not just gung-ho.
This paragraph above contradicts itself. Is it forcing or not forcing ?
>Is there anyone who has a comment, addition, >deletion or has re-written part of this to help >me?
An object classification looks very odd:
500' tower safer than 1000' ?
Auburn safer than NRGB ?
ESB safer than Tombstone ???
If you do want to rate objects, it may be better to compare apples with apples and separate freefall and landing dangers, as well. This is actually a part tham may be very useful for new (or all) jumpers.
bsbd!
Yuri.
i have to agree with adam on the point of what the rating system is really for.
it is mainly to keep the beaurocratic whuffos off our backs. though i know all too well that skydiving is not the same game, we do share access issues. you can rest assured that if there was no u.s.p.a., skydiving may have gone away a long time ago. i started jumping at a drop zone 18 years ago that has been plagued by access issues for almost that whole time. people were trying to get rid of the jumping there, mainly because they didn't do it, and it looked dangerous.they really didn't have any better reason.
demo jumps into restricted airspace and congested areas would not be allowed by the f.a.a.(another government agency) without the u.s.p.a. and the "pro rating" system. whether these organizations or ratings are right for everyone doesn't really matter, it just gives the politicians an escape when the lawyers come for their blood money when something goes wrong. they can say "well at least this guy was an expert(as far as they know)and it was just an act of GOD", hopefully mitigating the governments damages in some bogus lawsuit, that we all end up paying for.
unfortunately, if we want to play in the playgrounds that they are the custodians of we may have to play their games.
many sports have licensing requirements. drag racing, nascar, aerobatic flying, hang gliding, skydiving, etc..
believe me i'm no fan of rules either, never have been. if you knew my parents you'd know this is true. what we're talking about here is PLAYING THE GAME. as we've already seen, the beaurocrats don't care if we play or not. so we have to give a little to get a little. again, i don't feel that it's right, just what we may have to do.
setting standards is all we're talking about. that's the way the government does business, whether we like it or not.besides, how often does the government show up to check someone's SKYDIVING log book.see my point? hopefully we WILL be allowed to police ourselves like we do now ONCE WE GAIN ACCESS and much of this will be a moot point.
mick,thanks again for everything you're doing on our behalf. we'll figure it out.
brady
I don't like the idea of a rating system. I don't think we ought to look for our example in the skydiving world, where most of us see ratings (and where it looks like Mick's proposal had it's roots).
I'd rather that BASE looked more like climbing. That is: a legal, widely allowed activity in national parks. Climbing is universally permitted, with the non climbing sites the exception rather than the rule. There are no ratings, no policing, and very little enforcement. However, climbers are accepted by the NPS and the public as legitimate users.
Wouldn't we rather be like climbers than skydivers?
Think it over.
I'm currently in the process of reading the Certification draft, and I'll try to post or email my comprehensive feedback.
In the meantime, though, here's a thought from a BASE newbie (which I am).
Who will be the original instructors who will certify everyone else?
Is this just a sneaky way for the current BASE clique to exclude new comers from BASE jumping?
How long would I have to ground crew (or do other slave labor) for a chance to get instruction?
How much money will the BASE masters make from people looking to join the club? Will I have to fork over $1500 for a 1st BASE course if I want to jump? Isn't this a great way for the current BASE jumpers to make some cash off of the newbies?
What about foreign jumpers who may not be able to get the certifications? If a leading foreign jumper shows up and wants to jump a Grade 11 object in the U.S., are you going to let him, or is he going to have to pay for instruction from someone?
Or what about jumpers who want to push the limits beyond what the conventional wisdom feels is safe? Will they not be able to get certifications?
I guess what I'm saying is that I'd like some commitment on the part of the instructors that they would actually be committed to giving instruction and spreading the ratings as widely as possible. It would be far too easy for a small number of jumpers to monopolize the ratings, monopolize the legal jumps, and exclude everyone else, regardless of desire or ability. This is already a trend I've felt in BASE, and I'd hate to see it formalized by a cliquish rating system.
It's already hard enough for newcomers to get good instruction. Let's not make it any harder, or the newcomers will have to reinvent the sport, with a staggering toll in lives and sites along the way.
Tom Aiello
I must say I agree with Yuri. The freedom is an extremely important part of it. Making restricting rules and regulations may be a way to get some sort of acces, but I can say that for Norway's part, it wont get us acces to the Trollwall.
In Norway we had three very unfortunate accidents this year, plus a few injuries and incidents. This created alot of media coverage, alot of it negative, but surprisingly, a few of them where well informed and had less biased articles (lobby the media.) The accidents in Norway all happened to current, relatively experienced jumpers, none of them beginners. The certification program would not have stopped these accidents from happening.
One current rumor is that the Norwegian FAA may want to look more closely at the way Kjerag is run, and what rules and regulations are in force. This is a huge dilemma to the basecommunity in Norway. We want BASE jumping to continue to be like Yuri's description, and then we risk having outsiders without any understanding come in and try to forcefeed some set of rules, or worse. (It had to happen with the growing numbers of people, jumps,accidents and media coverage.) Hopefully it won't go there, but the mere possibility warrants some forethought.
One possible way to do this is to look at how the paragliding and hang gliding communities do it. In Norway they have educational programs available, the main focus is to educate independant and responsible participants of the sport. Not to control what points they launch from. In our sport, beeing amongst others as gear intensive as it is, education and reliable sourses of such are extremely important. But instead of trying to devide between A, B, C and so on, looking at the possibilty of having an extensive education available to those who want/need it is one way to go. We don't want A,B,C and D licenses. We want to be able to tell them that education is possible and information available to get someone off "student status." Making sure they have acces to an educational program and information that enables them to make good judgements on cliffs is vital.
One thing beeing looked into this winter is the possibility of putting together an educational program at Kjerag. There allready is education available for first time jumpers at Kjerag, but if the government were to look into it we need to make sure it is watertight. This means we need to put something down on paper in their language. Unfortunately, this is needed due to the mediacoverage and attention we have received in later years. The politicians are now looking at BASE jumping and we need to make sure that we will be able to continue to jump from our beautiful mountains. The Norwegian BASE Associating will focus on the legal cliff jumping, rather than the rest of BASE jumpings "safely jumpable objects."
Now, those who have friends that jump will always have the option of doing it the old way. But Kjerag is high profile in media, and unfortunately this may force the community to come up with more than "recommendations" or "common sense rules" for beginners. At present I don't think any Norwegian BASE jumper want restrictions for others than beginners, and even on that issue there is alot of different opinions. But we need to understand that as mediacoverage and attention rises, we need to be able to tell them in an intelligent way why they should let us continue to jump.
The nature of BASE jumping makes it practically impossible to enforce a rigid regulatory system. What is the punishment for breaking the rules ? Expulsion from the licensing body ? Like the Norwegian and other skydiving assosiations have done for years ? Are we sinking that low ? Or is it the famous tar and feather approach we want ?
Creating a licencing system we all know is impossible to enforce is not the way to go. I think a focus on education rather than regulation is the way to go. We have one advantage. Consolidated Rigging, Basic Research and Vertigo allready have educational programs. Is any of the information written down ? Is any of it available or is it "all rights reserved" like the licencing proposal ?
>Who will be the original instructors who
>will certify everyone else?
There will have to be a "grandfathering".
>Is this just a sneaky way for
>the current BASE clique to exclude
>new comers from BASE jumping?
NO!
>How long would I have to ground
>crew for a chance to get instruction?
There should be a standard instructional program that includes some degree of ground schooling.
>How much money will the BASE masters
>make from people looking to join
>the club?
I don't know! Some would do it for free like they have always done. The difference is now, a guy with 3 BASE jumps will not be instructing you how to jump.
Will I have
>to fork over $1500 for a
>1st BASE course if I want
>to jump? Isn't this a
>great way for the current BASE
>jumpers to make some cash off
>of the newbies?
This depends on who does it and what the coarse entails. If it includes all accomodations to a distant destination, maybe so then.
>What about foreign jumpers who may not
>be able to get the certifications?
This system is not confined to the US. There are not enough jumpers worldwide to warrent that.
>Or what about jumpers who want to
>push the limits beyond what the
>conventional wisdom feels is safe?
This system, I think, will keep first jump coarses off advanced sites. These places are no place for a newbee who thinks they are bad ass to learn how to base jump.
>Will they not be able to
>get certifications?
A certification, means that you have a certain degree of knowledge. Who do you want to teach you? A person who has been jumping for 5 days, or 5 years? Who has 5 jumps or 500?
Mick : "However, there are hundreds, if not thousands of jumps in the US, Norway and Australia that will never be legal without the strict guidlines of a rating system."
At current only Trollwall is illegal in Norway, and we are currently very uncertain if we want "the Kjerag effect" in the Trollwall. A licensing system will not remove accidents, maybe reduce the number, I'll give you that. But then half or more of the people who have jumped it should not be allowed up again due to "not qualified?"
Mick : "I am not saying that a rating system is going to save us every accident. I am saying that incidents like the PG&E Tower (sorry Bonnie), could have been avoided by the realization of abilities as set forth in a licensing system. I am speaking about students and low time jumpers here."
Mick, please let us learn from everything that happens, but let us not do like the media we criticize so much. In my opinion you just did to Bonnie what SF journal or whatever the newspapers where called did to Jan and the other 5 friends we lost this year. We all make mistakes and hindsight is so easy. No regulation or license will remove our capability of mistakes. Look to aviation, 90% (or so) is human error, licenses will never change that. She did her best, got stuck and dealt with it.
Mick : "This is a very stupid point to try to make here! Look at Wayne Crill. If wayne would have adheredto such a system and had one WUFFO at the car waiting, he would not have all the problems he has now."
If Jan had used her own gear, if Thor Alex had not jumped through fog, if the Aussies had not done a 6 way, if Frank had not jumped into the river.
Exactly what are you saying Mick ?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks