Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!samsung!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!gr.utah.edu!wtm
From: wtm%gr.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thomas McCollough)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: CRW / license requirements
Message-ID: <1991Feb19.114224.19554@hellgate.utah.edu>
Date: 19 Feb 91 18:42:24 GMT
References: <2944@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU> <1991Feb18.121056.16982@hellgate.utah.edu> <2956@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU>
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 22

In article <2956@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU> mspurgeo@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Mike Spurgeon) writes:
>In article <1991Feb18.121056.16982@hellgate.utah.edu>, wtm%gr.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thomas McCollough) writes:
>>                                                        I believe
>> that a CRW license requirement would kill many more people than any
>> other license requirement we have.
>
>Name a license requirement that has killed someone.

Let me clarify this.  Take, for example, all the skydiving deaths in
the past past 10 years.  If any of those skydivers made their final
jump with the motivation, in part or in full, of fulfulling a license
requirement, then you can say that the USPA license system has indeed
killed someone.  Maybe it only amounts to one half death in 10 years.
My point is that if we introduce a license requirement that is
difficult to fulfill safely (relatively speaking), then I believe USPA
members will scream.

If you want to be recognized for a bridge jump, then you apply to the
BASE association.  I believe that at this time you'll have to form your
own organization if you want a license for CRW.

Tom McCollough