Skydive Kansas | RESOURCES

"Rules were meant to be broken!"
I hear this at times, as an argument to convince me somehow to ignore some rule or policy that some jumper wants to break. Is this true? We're skydivers! We are FREE! The nature of our sport is to be unfettered and explore! So why have rules at all?

To some extent, this spirit is what keeps us living, but in some cases, it can kill us. That is why rules are implemented. There is not a single rule or recommendation made by USPA that didn't have a history of fatality attached to it. Call it what you will: rules, policies, regulations, requirements... it's all the same thing, just in varying degrees. They are formed in an attempt to reduce risk, and increase safety.

But safety and rules don't always go hand in hand. For example, if I had a reserve ride on a parachute that had been packed 125 days ago, would it not work? Would I be unsafe just because it was 5 days over the RULE? What about the other way around... there is no rule for licensed jumpers on maximum wind speed, so if I decide to go when the winds are 35 mph, is that SAFE?

So why have rules at all, if they don't always do the job they're intended for? Because there is a limit. And rules can only approximate that limit. There is no way to regulate good judgment, but closely studying what elements cause risk in particular situations can lead to a reduction in those risks. We call them red flags. Setting limits when you are not immediately faced with a decision can provide greater clarity and neutrality in that decision. For example, in the front of your logbook, on a day when you are not jumping, write down what your personal wind limit is. The next time that wind meter goes over that limit, and you're geared up wanting to ignore it, hopefully you'd remember taking pen to paper and setting a specific limit.

So, were rules meant to be broken? The sport is incessantly changing, so occasionally, some rules need to be readdressed to check if they are doing the job of assisting in safety. If not, then change them through a logical process, not on a whim. This goes both ways: if a rule is outdated and too old, then delete it or revise it. If a safety issue continues to be a problem, add a new rule based on reducing the risks associated with that concern. But allowing "flexibility" in the rules (that's a euphemism by the way) means the process is degraded. Preserve the integrity!