Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!jnrees
From: jnrees@athena.mit.edu (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: AFF Fatality
Message-ID: <1991Apr24.195157.19924@athena.mit.edu>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
References: <2809.28158962@ehsnet.fidonet.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 19:51:57 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <2809.28158962@ehsnet.fidonet.org> SKYDIVE@f15.n233.z1.FIDONET.ORG (SKYDIVE) (Mike Johnston) writes:
 safety.
>... The 
>fatality with the non-rated JM just shows that the instructor training 
>system works pretty well, it did screen this guy out.

This statement is a leap of logic and is inconsistent with the spirit
of the rest of the article.  The unrated JM fails the AFF course and
subsequently a student of his is killed, therefore the AFF course
works?  Surely the non-rated JM did not plan on letting his student
die, and as was stated earlier in the article, the student is
responsible for saving him/herself on any skydive.  One datapoint
among the countless AFF skydives with rated and un-rated AFF JM's does
not say much.

Besides, in light of recent events, there have been equal numbers of
AFF student fatalities with rated and un-rated JM's.  Does this mean
that the AFF course makes no difference?

		Jim Rees
		D-13359
		(rated) AFF JM '91