doughboyshred 0 #227 October 22, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Maybe. And maybe you ought to re-read what you think you read until you get it instead of jumping to conclusions based not on actual content but on bias, prejudice and pre-conceived notions. Until now I have not contributed, but as someone who has never been to Lodi, knows nothing about Bill and his history (other than what I have read here), who doesn't know you, or anyone else in this discussion and as someone who served as an aircraft mechanic who has changed hundreds of perfectly good parts because they have timed out, I have to say that when I first read your 'skydiving is dangerous' comment I came to the same conclusion about what you wrote. I was not biased, prejudiced, nor had any preconceptions as I read it. Then I respectfully submit that you re-read what you think you read until you get it instead of arriving at a conclusion influenced not by actual content but by the bias, prejudice and pre-conceived notions advanced by 95 percent of the posters on either side of that one. I came to the same conclusions, and have no preconceived notions. As far as I can tell you need to rewrite what you wrote, because it is definitely NOT coming across the way you say you intended it to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #228 October 22, 2010 Quote So he's provided cheap jumps for others and has racked up more jumps than just about anybody else. I can see the first point being "contributing", but what does one person making a lot of jumps do for the sport in general? And how does that stack up against using non-rated instructors while advertising the use of rated instructors (look at the website) or giving people FAA riggers tickets without making them even touch a rigging tool (I can vouch for that one, he gave me mine; apparently the FAA didn't think much of it since he's not a DPRE anymore), or not requiring the use of seat belts. And these are just things that I have personal knowledge of - I have secondhand knowledge of many other things that happen at Lodi that are sketchy at best and dangerous at worst. If it were only happening to experienced skydivers, I wouldn't be saying a word. I'd rather my friends not die, but they are all grown up skydivers who can make their own risk assessment decisions. Students and tandem passengers don't have enough information to make those decisions. Nobody has a right to put a tandem passenger or a student at increased risk just to make a buck. Anybody who does so as a regular practice is not contributing good things to the sport, no matter how cheap the jumps are or how many jumps the dzo has logged. LOL First, you ask for a list of Bill's contributions to the sport. When you receive two big ones, instead of saying "thank you for the information," you: a) denigrate them despite the fact that they are in fact monumental achievements according to any standard of sport parachuting; then b) change the subject and recite a laundry list of alleged Bill sins that are unrelated to the title issue of this thread. Why is that, skybytch? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #229 October 22, 2010 Quote I am confident in my abilites and the performance of my equipment such that I can survive a parachute descent. I have no confidence in my abilites to survive an airplane crash. Then start BASE jumping. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #230 October 22, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote "imagine." Not hard to imagine that a DZ that skips MX could have more MX issues than a DZ that does the proper MX. key word: "imagine." If I recall correctly, Bill did not have an actual MX issue; he had an FAA compliance issue. Or am I imagining that? http://tsb-bst.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2008/a08p0242/a08p0242.asp I'd call this one a MX issue...and I for one, do see a trend here. And this has what to do with the proposed $664,000 fine and the compliance issues related thereto?SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #232 October 22, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote "imagine." Not hard to imagine that a DZ that skips MX could have more MX issues than a DZ that does the proper MX. key word: "imagine." If I recall correctly, Bill did not have an actual MX issue; he had an FAA compliance issue. Or am I imagining that? http://tsb-bst.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2008/a08p0242/a08p0242.asp I'd call this one a MX issue...and I for one, do see a trend here. And this has what to do with the proposed $664,000 fine and the compliance issues related thereto? ~Tendencies my friend TENDENCIES! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #233 October 22, 2010 Quote Quote If I recall correctly, Bill did not have an actual MX issue; he had an FAA compliance issue. Or am I imagining that? It very likely started with this MX issue... /cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3732320;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; And this has what to do with the proposed $664,000 fine and the compliance issues related thereto? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #234 October 22, 2010 QuoteI am confident in my abilites and the performance of my equipment such that I can survive a parachute descent. I have no confidence in my abilites to survive an airplane crash. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then start BASE jumping. You realize that tacking a smiley face to every resonse doesn't make them any less stupid. Yes, BASE jumping is one solutuion to not being involved in a plane crash. Maybe I mistook the intelligence of some readers when I assumed that the other obvious choice, in light of my comments about aircraft being maintained to the standard set forth by the FAA, was to jump from aircraft actually maintained to that standard. My mistake. Just like I realize that a skydive is taking a risk, regardless of my abilities or equipment, I realize that riding in an airplane is also a risk. Based on my knowledge of the FAA standards, it's a risk I'm willing to take provided that aircraft is maintained to to that standard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #235 October 22, 2010 Quote Quote Quote To me this part of the post suggests that it's ok to ignore FAA requirements if they are deemed useless. Therefore robinheid by his words is supporting Bill's not maintaining his aircraft according to FAA regulations. If that isn't what robinheid meant then he needs to be more clear in his statements. What you think I "suggest" is a product of your imagination, not what I actually wrote. Ergo, any conclusion you draw based on that suggestion is invalid. No, my conclusions were based on what you wrote. I quoted your writing. Try rereading what you wrote and if it wasn't what you meant then revise what you wrote. LOL You say yourself that you based your conclusions on what you thought my post "suggests" -- not what I actually wrote. And you did not "quote" my writing. If you did, there would be quote marks around my actual words. What you did is "paraphrase" my words, which means you summarized what you thought I suggested in my actual words. So try this when you respond again: Put quote marks around my actual words and then try to make your case. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #236 October 22, 2010 Quote I realize that a skydive is taking a risk, regardless of my abilities or equipment, I realize that riding in an airplane is also a risk. Based on my knowledge of the FAA standards, it's a risk I'm willing to take provided that aircraft is maintained to to that standard. Reeeeeally. When was the last time you checked the maintenance logs of the aircraft from which you jump? Or do you just assume that they are being maintained according to FAA standards? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #237 October 22, 2010 QuoteIf I recall correctly, Bill did not have an actual MX issue; he had an FAA compliance issue. Or am I imagining that? What you are doing is ignoring the fact that ignoring MX leads to a higher chance of an accident just to be argumentative."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #238 October 22, 2010 Quote Quote If I recall correctly, Bill did not have an actual MX issue; he had an FAA compliance issue. Or am I imagining that? What you are doing is ignoring the fact that ignoring MX leads to a higher chance of an accident just to be argumentative. Never said ignore MX. No one has proven or even argued that Bill ignored MX -- only that he ignored FAA compliance requirements in a very narrowly prescribed area of MX. Not being argumentative. Au contraire, mon ami; I'm just trying to introduce a little precision and discipline to this argument. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #239 October 22, 2010 Quote Quote Quote If I recall correctly, Bill did not have an actual MX issue; he had an FAA compliance issue. Or am I imagining that? It very likely started with this MX issue... /cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3732320;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; And this has what to do with the proposed $664,000 fine and the compliance issues related thereto? You said: "If I recall correctly, Bill did not have an actual MX issue;" It's seems he in fact DID have an MX issue... If you meant ONLY to refer to the 664,000 question you should have made that clear. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #240 October 22, 2010 QuoteReeeeeally. When was the last time you checked the maintenance logs of the aircraft from which you jump? Or do you just assume that they are being maintained according to FAA standards? I currently jump from two aircraft. One is a Part 135 maintained Caravan operated by a cargo/air taxi operation who also runs one of the premiere maintenance shops in the area. The other is Part 91 C182 and I know both the owner and A&P personally. On top of that, I take it as a very good sign when the owner is willing to put the seats back in and use the plane to transport his family to fly-ins and pancake breakfasts. I have, in the past, jumped at many DZs where I had no knowledge of any of these things. Now that I am more informed, I take some interest in my safety, and that extends to the aircraft I will fly, fly in, or jump out of. Just because you may be less discriminate with your safety does not mean that I have to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #241 October 22, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote If I recall correctly, Bill did not have an actual MX issue; he had an FAA compliance issue. Or am I imagining that? It very likely started with this MX issue... /cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3732320;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; And this has what to do with the proposed $664,000 fine and the compliance issues related thereto? You said: "If I recall correctly, Bill did not have an actual MX issue;" It's seems he in fact DID have an MX issue... If you meant ONLY to refer to the 664,000 question you should have made that clear. As I understand it, the cables and/or wing spars did not fai. Ergo, there was no MX issue -- there was an FAA compliance issue. Which, of course, is the title and therefore the topic of this thread, not all of the other ancillary, peripheral and off-topic sub-topics being "offered" herein. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #242 October 22, 2010 QuoteNever said ignore MX. 1. You have defended him doing it. 2. You have argued that it is not a factor in accidents. Quote No one has proven or even argued that Bill ignored MX 2 incidents that were attributed to bad MX and a 664k fine from the FAA seem to show you are wrong. QuoteNot being argumentative. Your posts show otherwise. QuoteI'm just trying to introduce a little precision and discipline to this argument. Again, your posts show otherwise."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #243 October 22, 2010 Quote Quote Never said ignore MX. 1. You have defended him doing it. 2. You have argued that it is not a factor in accidents. 1. LOL 2. Ditto. Quote No one has proven or even argued that Bill ignored MX Quote 2 incidents that were attributed to bad MX and a 664k fine from the FAA seem to show you are wrong. I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong but, as I understand it, neither of those incidents factored into the proposed $664,000 fine, which, again, is the subject of this thread, not all the ancillary, peripheral and off-topic informatioin being "offered" herein. Quote Not being argumentative. Quote Your posts show otherwise. LOL Quote I'm just trying to introduce a little precision and discipline to this argument. Quote Again, your posts show otherwise. LOL SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,822 #244 October 22, 2010 This thread has become a pointless pissing contest. Bill Dause is going to be fined $664,000 for lack of maintenance on his aircraft, and he's had serious issues relating to aircraft maintenance in the past. That is worth discussing. Some jumpers may not want the increased risk of being injured or killed in a maintenance-related aircraft incident; some may prefer the cheap jumps he is known for. Knowledge of his maintenance issues beforehand can make such decisions easier for jumpers. If anyone wants to discuss the above issues, feel free to start another thread here or in S+T. Pointless pissing contests, stupid semantics arguments or one liners will be deleted and may get you banned from the forum. If anyone wants to post personal attacks on Dause (or wants to defend his virtue) please do so in SC or Bonfire. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Site Is For Sale
