Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread)

 


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 14, 2005, 3:10 PM
Post #1 of 295 (3132 views)
Shortcut
BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) Can't Post

This is a continuation of a thread from the Incidents forum.

The issue that it evolved to was - should we institute a canopy loading BSR? Several of us proposed such a BSR a while back, in a proposal that included mandatory education, wing loading limits based on licenses and a way to "test out" of the limitation if you could prove you were good enough.

Several people have proposed other ways of doing it, and many are opposed to any regulation at all. (all to introduce the topic.)


AggieDave  (D License)

Jan 14, 2005, 3:30 PM
Post #2 of 295 (3098 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

This has been hashed out in a number of BSR wingloading threads, I think there's been atleast 5 in the past year.

The wingloading with the ability to test out has been the most practical suggestion to date.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 14, 2005, 5:27 PM
Post #3 of 295 (3059 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

From the "low turn into asphalt" thread on incidents...Pash asked if there were *any* negative impacts with possible WL related changes.

In reply to:
I asked for a negative and I suppose you gave me one! Yeah it's expensive. I spent north of 3 with all the beer and whatnot. This problem with "entry" costs wouldn't apply to the wl suggestion here and in Derek's thread because this level of skydiver (less than A holder) is generally not the one looking to downsize to hp.
...
Do dz's rent smaller canopies for less than the larger ones? I really thought this was about buying hp canopies, not renting. My gear store would never rent something to me that put me at a WL of 1.4:1.

Pash, the W/L proposals aren't just about the obvious dangers like a 300jumper on a 1.8 load, or a 200jumper on a 1.45 Stilletto. Brian Germain's WL never exceed chart is often cited, that starts at a limit of 1.0 for < 100jumps, increasing .1 for every hundred. (also subtracts for < 150, or for altitude).

It's pretty typical for a first rig to have a main in the 1.0 to 1.1 range. Gear shop operators here who have participated in these discussions don't believe that to be a big risk. If that 1.0 line was held, there would be a slight change in behavior.

Proposals also hint at increased canopy training requirements, which would touch the bottom line in some fashion.

And as we were talking about the bigger guys...I run 210-220 over this past year. Translating to an exit weight of 245-255, right at the normal max of 254. The ideal size for me has been a ZP 230, at sea level. 210 is right over the edge of ok for me - I'd want to be at 205lbs or better.

I've had some trouble visiting DZs and renting:
Hollister- has Falcon 215, Spectre 210. Often with no RSL, guarantees won't be used by AFF students.
Lodi - Tri 220. Had a 260, but unfortunately was in that in air collision the week prior. PIA says this is 239, so maybe not so bad. I liked it enough to buy it.
Elsinore - Spectre 210 is biggest for gear shop, plus altitude concerns there. I found the envelope that weekend.
Perris - I think 230 is top for Square1.
Skydance - was ok, but early on was competing for 1 of 2 student class 265s. Gear shop has 2 more sporting 230s (fusion and omni), which I now have been using.
Byron might top out at 210, but I've had such bad luck with weather there, 3 unjumpable days.

So if we mandate a 1.0 limit, either the rental options need to improve, or 6'ers are going to have to make compromises on time or gear or spend more money on a 260 that they use for a limited time. Clearly that's a negative consequence, again then you decide the value return. I'd agree that by the time the person is at 200 jumps, the 1.2 threshold isn't very onerous - I suspect they would wait till 300 or 400 to go to the next canopy.

In reply to:
I didn't blink when I spent $3k+ in 3 months. The 1,000+ jump skydivers commenting on this thread didn't get there overnight. They aren't talking about a WL BSR because one person ate it. They have been around long enough to see it happen over and over again. Maybe they see a pattern.

That 3000 is a lot dearer for some jumpers than others.

They may see a pattern, but if so it's from selective vision of the incidents. A pretty big chunk of the deaths come from people with over 1000 jumps too. I suspect every DZ has a list of guys who are expected to die. The vast majority don't. There's definitely a correlation, but it's not so strong as 200 jumps and 1.45WL = broken leg by March.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 14, 2005, 5:42 PM
Post #4 of 295 (3050 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Why should it only be necessary for a new guy to prove he can meet that requirement to by pass the firm line?
Because it would be unfair to yank a guy out from under his current canopy and make him buy a new one. Just likek it would have been unfair to yank a guys "D" once it went to 500 jumps if he had 300,or make a 19 year old not be allowed to drink.

Still raising the Drinking age was a good idea don't you think?

When a given state raised the drinking limit, they didn't say, you must be 21 to drink. Everyone born between 1967 and 1970 is exempt. They said, as of 3 years from now, the drinking age is 21. I know there's a little bit of subterfuge in that...

I'm proposing exactly the same thing. As of July 1, 2006 (give people in winter states the spring), everyone must be in compliance with the new WL BSR. If they're currently overloaded, they can jump their way clear, they can drop weight, they can change canopies, or they can prove themselves capable with the skills test.

Hardly unfair. People have 17 months to break their legs on unsafe canpies. If they're jumping engouh to be safe on such an aggressive choice, they'll collect the jump numbers.

Also prevents a run on VX90s the moth before the change takes effect.

In reply to:
Don't know all the things, but it does not matter...you said you would not revoke a guys "D", so why woudl you want to make them buy a new canopy?

Because no one is crashing and dying because they got their D with the easier 200 jump requirement. But lots of guys with 200-500 jumps are vunerable with their current canopy and need to be saved (at least according to you all). You would abandon them in the name of expediancy.


pash

Jan 14, 2005, 6:09 PM
Post #5 of 295 (3044 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It's pretty typical for a first rig to have a main in the 1.0 to 1.1 range. Gear shop operators here who have participated in these discussions don't believe that to be a big risk. If that 1.0 line was held, there would be a slight change in behavior.

I see where you're coming from now. However, if my math is correct aren't you wingloading at 1.08? Again, if the math is right, I wonder if some of the more experienced jumpers here would consider that aggressive? From what I've read it seems like they're complaining of us lowbies (even with a couple hundred jumps more than us) jumping an aggressively loaded canopy and attempting a hp landing.

As it is right now, I could do a recurrency jump, go out and buy a hp canopy jump it quietly and land it LOUDLY. I see that there is no real way to completely stop behavior like that - even thought it's an extreme example - but to train us from very early on, a responsible progression, could certainly help reduce the number of incidents that started this thread.

In reality, this could quite possibly have a positive financial impact for the DZ's. If it's known that certain WL's are prohibited at certain demonstrated proficiencies, they've helped their liability by making it public and keeping a watchful eye. Maybe not to those that have been around just long enough to know how to bend the rules, but more of a benefit for those people starting from jump one after a BSR is implemented. Those people would know right from wrong from jump.

In reply to:
Proposals also hint at increased canopy training requirements, which would touch the bottom line in some fashion.

Could touch on the bottom line a little more if outside forces decide for an even stricter regulation. Plus, what about the fees for these classes? That would help the DZ. Wouldn't fewer skydivers at a higher level of competency be a good thing - specific to high WL and hp landings? Too Jerry McGuire? Who's coming with me?

In reply to:
And as we were talking about the bigger guys...I run 210-220 over this past year. Translating to an exit weight of 245-255, right at the normal max of 254. The ideal size for me has been a ZP 230, at sea level. 210 is right over the edge of ok for me - I'd want to be at 205lbs or better.

I've had some trouble visiting DZs and renting:
Hollister- has Falcon 215, Spectre 210. Often with no RSL, guarantees won't be used by AFF students.
Lodi - Tri 220. Had a 260, but unfortunately was in that in air collision the week prior. PIA says this is 239, so maybe not so bad. I liked it enough to buy it.
Elsinore - Spectre 210 is biggest for gear shop, plus altitude concerns there. I found the envelope that weekend.
Perris - I think 230 is top for Square1.
Skydance - was ok, but early on was competing for 1 of 2 student class 265s. Gear shop has 2 more sporting 230s (fusion and omni), which I now have been using.
Byron might top out at 210, but I've had such bad luck with weather there, 3 unjumpable days.

This is where I really empathize with you. I'm hoping proponents for this BSR could identify a solution to this problem. How aggressive is a 1.08 WL?

In reply to:
That 3000 is a lot dearer for some jumpers than others.

Yeah I understand. It was dear to me too but I didn't blink because it was the best use for that kind of money that I've ever put that kind of money into! I would never jeopardize my own safety and the SAFETY OF OTHERS because of money. Again, I see the rental problem but there's no way I'm WL'ing 1.4:1 for any kind of money at my experience level. (really not even a 1.2:1).

In reply to:
They may see a pattern, but if so it's from selective vision of the incidents. A pretty big chunk of the deaths come from people with over 1000 jumps too.

And what if an escalated level of training and education was required? Would that number be reduced? I don't know but it would certainly reduce the number of those with fewer jumps!

Again, I can understand your point considering how it affects you personally. I cannot however see how this would negatively impact the skydiving community as a whole. Would anyone care to tell me if the 239 he bought would be usable under any suggested BSR based on average exit weight of 250?

Finally, and more to the point: are you trying hp landings currently? Because the way I see it, it's those that want to downsize to an aggressive WL ratio that also want the hp landings.


Scrumpot  (D License)

Jan 14, 2005, 6:54 PM
Post #6 of 295 (3033 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Because the way I see it, it's those that want to downsize to an aggressive WL ratio that also want the hp landings.

Actually, I find it quite interesting, and it seems I have heard a lot lately, jumpers defending their High WL (and/or HP canopy choice) conversely with statements like: "yeah, but even at 1.5(+):1 I am 'safe' because I am not either hook turning or performing HP landings".

This is strictly an anecdotal observation, but seems somewhat contradictory, wouldn't you say? How would you also then quantify that?

Only conclusion that I am able to come to, no matter which side of the equation these jumpers are coming down on (in "justifying" their positions) is that they (obviously, and clearly) just don't understand what it is they are getting into! NOT a good situation (or indication) IMHO either way you look at it.

Again, just yet another recent anomally that I have OBSERVED. I really am starting to more seriously wonder if some sort or variation of WL BSR just might in fact, be needed. ...Dunno. My "jury" is still out on that one, and it seems the more I read, the MORE I hear, still even the more ...I just dunno! Crazy

-Grant


pash

Jan 14, 2005, 7:18 PM
Post #7 of 295 (3026 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Actually, I find it quite interesting, and it seems I have heard a lot lately, jumpers defending their High WL (and/or HP canopy choice) conversely with statements like: "yeah, but even at 1.5(+):1 I am 'safe' because I am not either hook turning or performing HP landings".

This is strictly an anecdotal observation, but seems somewhat contradictory, wouldn't you say? How would you also then quantify that?

Point taken - you can see I haven't been around that long - nonetheless, I appreciate the opportunity to have some dialogue with this interesting and important topic (especially as one that this BSR suggestion would affect).

I'm just now realizing that WL'ing is not everything after reading this and some related threads. Up until now, I thought a WL of 1.1:1 on a 97 was just a WL issue. I now see that different canopies fly in different ways REGARDLESS of WL.

I think the hp landing could be sort of "tacked on" to the WL BSR because it seems that's the way a lot of people end up hitting hard. I haven't been around long enough to hear anyone talk about a high WL but still flying a square pattern. Thinking about it, a pure WL would be good but the hooking and swooping should be a consideration while we're at it.

I've been to exactly 2 dz's. Am I correct in thinking some dz's have signs prohibiting hook turns? I wonder how popular those are? (I really mean that question by the way - I don't know).

I have witnessed a lot of hook turns and swooping and really REALLY enjoyed what I saw. I admire it like an artist admires something beautiful. It would be another story to have someone with no skills attempt to forge the mona lisa.

As a newbie I think the downsize issue goes hand-in-hand with the hp landings in spirit.

In reply to:
Only conclusion that I am able to come to, no matter which side of the equation these jumpers are coming down on (in "justifying" their positions) is that they (obviously, and clearly) just don't understand what it is they are getting into! NOT a good situation (or indication) IMHO either way you look at it.

Agreed. Let's all help limit this by putting pen to paper before someone else does. From my angle, I have no problem with making an effort to meet the goals set before me in the name of safety. This doesn't seem to be a community that caprisciously hands down rules. And we can see what's in our best interest better than those that CAN make the rules for us.


pash

Jan 14, 2005, 7:20 PM
Post #8 of 295 (3025 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Dave,

Do you have a link to the one that suggests WL requirement w/ ability to test out? Curious as to what WL requirement was on that vs. Derek's and what "test out" was specifically.

thx,
j


AggieDave  (D License)

Jan 14, 2005, 7:28 PM
Post #9 of 295 (3022 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

I can't remember the specific thread, feel free to search if you like.

Basically the charts were like those suggested by Brian Germain for jump numbers and wingloading and the test out was similar to BillVon's downsize list. It could be administered by an S&TA, if I remember correctly.

Germain's WL suggestions were as followed:

0-100 >=1.0
100-200 1.1
200-300 1.2
300-400 1.3

And so forth, pretty straight forward really.


Ron

Jan 15, 2005, 7:37 AM
Post #10 of 295 (2978 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
When a given state raised the drinking limit, they didn't say, you must be 21 to drink. Everyone born between 1967 and 1970 is exempt. They said, as of 3 years from now, the drinking age is 21. I know there's a little bit of subterfuge in that...

I'm proposing exactly the same thing. As of July 1, 2006 (give people in winter states the spring), everyone must be in compliance with the new WL BSR. If they're currently overloaded, they can jump their way clear, they can drop weight, they can change canopies, or they can prove themselves capable with the skills test.

No, its not the same. The 20 year old didn't have to do anything to "pass". The 17 year old did.

Thats what I am saying.

In reply to:
Also prevents a run on VX90s the moth before the change takes effect.

Like I said...To late for me. (I am 18 when the law was passed). But the new guys will be affected. If you try to get something like this WO a "Grandfather" clause...It will not pass. sad but true. I however will do any test you want me to do.


diablopilot  (D License)

Jan 15, 2005, 9:49 PM
Post #11 of 295 (2912 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So if we mandate a 1.0 limit, either the rental options need to improve, or 6'ers are going to have to make compromises on time or gear or spend more money on a 260 that they use for a limited time. Clearly that's a negative consequence, again then you decide the value return. I'd agree that by the time the person is at 200 jumps, the 1.2 threshold isn't very onerous - I suspect they would wait till 300 or 400 to go to the next canopy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I didn't blink when I spent $3k+ in 3 months. The 1,000+ jump skydivers commenting on this thread didn't get there overnight. They aren't talking about a WL BSR because one person ate it. They have been around long enough to see it happen over and over again. Maybe they see a pattern.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That 3000 is a lot dearer for some jumpers than others.

Money should never be opposite saftey. Period.


diablopilot  (D License)

Jan 15, 2005, 9:55 PM
Post #12 of 295 (2910 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Hwy bill. Notice something about the anti BSR peeps? A good majority of them are low jump numbers and/or non instructional rating holders. Guess they've never had to scrape one of their students off the ground.

Death is easy. Those that get fucked up for life are the hard ones to deal with. After they are "well" again, their shatterd lives still have to be put back together.

Listen to the screams of someone in agony with a powdered lower body in the landing area. Talk to someone about the pain of taking a shit with a broken pelvis. Ask someone about the inconvinence, pain, and embarrassment of a colostamy bag. Hold someone's hand as they die.

Then tell me something doesn't need to be done. Instructors and DZO's need teeth to back them up.

Why do fewer people pull below 2 grand than they did in the 80's? Because there is a BSR. Why do students not die from cutaway/no reserve pull anymore? Because there is an RSL/AAD BSR.

Figure it out.


(This post was edited by diablopilot on Jan 15, 2005, 9:57 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 15, 2005, 11:13 PM
Post #13 of 295 (2906 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Listen to the screams of someone in agony with a powdered lower body in the landing area. Talk to someone about the pain of taking a shit with a broken pelvis. Ask someone about the inconvinence, pain, and embarrassment of a colostamy bag. Hold someone's hand as they die.

Hey JP,

Part of the problem is the ones you mentioned could give a shit less about someone else. To the ones you mentioned in your first paragraph its all about "me". They feel they should not have to earn anything, everything is their right.

Fuck it, let Darwin have them. The deserve each other.

I am sick and tired of debating death with some punk who can't find his ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Sparky


parachutist  (D 25468)

Jan 16, 2005, 1:16 AM
Post #14 of 295 (2900 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hwy bill. Notice something about the anti BSR peeps? A good majority of them are low jump numbers and/or non instructional rating holders. Guess they've never had to scrape one of their students off the ground.


I watched the guy hit the pavement last weekend: I had just spent a few hours with 2 students teaching them most of their first jump course for AFF. We were taking a break, standing out on the tarmac watching landings, then *thud*. Approx. 1 hour before this I had been explaining to the students "the most common cause for injury in this sport today is turns at low altitude".

Pro WL BSR folks are barking up the wrong tree in their attempt to prevent these landing injuries. People who make hard turns at low altitude (via riser or toggle) have much more potential for injury than those who fly the canopy straight in, no matter what the wing loading. The WL is not causing the broken bones... low turns are causing the broken bones & fatalties.

I ask my students: "Suppose you're landing off the airport in a cow field... at 50 feet above the ground suddenly you notice there's a barbed wire fence in front of you... What do you do?" Answer: Continue on your current path. It's better to run into that fence and deal with the cuts/bruises than to turn at low altitude trying to avoid it, finding yourself in ambulance because you made a low turn.

Jumpers need a healthy fear of turns at low altitude instead of new WL restrictions. No panic turns. No HP turns until they've passed a training course.

Chris


stratostar  (Student)

Jan 16, 2005, 4:43 AM
Post #15 of 295 (2890 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

I would have to agree with sparky.
As I grew up on a dz and when I started jumping everyone looked up to the jumpers who had been in the sport for a long time, even if they only had a by todays standards low jump numbers, after all making 200 to 300 jumps a year on rounds was a lot and hard on your body, point is it was the years of experience that mattered not jump numbers.
But today I see "the me generation" comming in to the sport
with a know it all attitude and showing very little respect for someone like sparky and what he would have to say because he don't jump some pocket rocket and swoop a football field with no hands looking backwards or laying on his belly, and seeing how he don't fly that way or do freeflying then he's NOT COOL!
I have a very good friend that has been jumping for 50 years
and at age 70 now jumps just as hard or harder then most 25 year old's. (he can fly circles around them too) This guy is a master rigger,instructor for the last 30+ years, when someone like this tells the "new crowd" what their doing is wrong,(rigging or flying, canopy control, downsizing ect) they all blow him off and act as if he is just talking shit and telling them what to do, with this attitude being backed up by some of the newer hot shot crowd instructors.Crazy
Back in the day when someone like a sparky came up and told you something you listened to what the hell they had to say
and took it all in because it might save your ass, these guys have been there and seen most of all of it before.
There is a reason guys like sparky have been able to stay in the sport for 30 years or longer and stay alive and keep walking up right.
If Bill Booth walked up to you and pointed at your rig and said your fucking up and are going to die if you don't change your ways, you would change! But to blow off some because their not someone who is as well known as Bill Booth is just foolish!
We've seen them come and seen them go (some leave in bodybags) with their rush to be joe cool hot shit of the sky.
Maybe I'm just old school, but the ones I look up to and hope to be like are the guys like sparky and my 70 year old friend, I would like to have as many years in the sport as they do and to have done as many jumps as possable and live to tell the storys.There are a whole bunch of punk ass kids today who need to wake up before they wake up dead!
There is no real reason anyone needs to jump at a high wingloading or needs to land as fast or faster then a cessna 182, it may be fun yes but what real need is there to do so
with only a few hundred jumps other then to be cool!
Do we really need a BSR or do people just need to pull their heads out of their ass?

~


(This post was edited by stratostar on Jan 16, 2005, 4:48 AM)


obelixtim  (D 84)

Jan 16, 2005, 6:07 AM
Post #16 of 295 (2877 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

 I'd have to agree....one of these tossers was telling me I was a softcock because I couldn't handle seeing a little bit of blood and guts on the DZ.....and because I'd taken 30 years to get 4000 odd jumps I was too old and too slow......

The arrogance is breathtaking.....

But he's been around all of 2 years and knows it all....even snapped a femur already...(I had to laugh)...But even that hasn't knocked the bullshit out of him....

I guess we've all worked too hard to make jumping too easy for these guys......so its all our own fault.....

But I do get a kick out of shooting them full of holes when they screw up.....

Ego crushing.......a great sport....Laugh


Ron

Jan 16, 2005, 7:10 AM
Post #17 of 295 (2865 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

I am actually pretty sick of it. When I started (11 years, so Not that long) anyone with more jumps/experience than me was listened to.

Today, these new "know it alls" don't listen to ayone unless the advice they get is what they want.

I always figured that the first step in skydiving is to live so I can do it again....Keeping in those lines a guy with 4000 jumps knows more than me at 3300. So I tend to listen to those with experience.

These new fucksticks don't seem to get that.

They also seem to think respect is something people are supposed to given then, but they don't need to give to anyone else.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 16, 2005, 7:29 AM
Post #18 of 295 (2861 views)
Shortcut
Re: [parachutist] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Pro WL BSR folks are barking up the wrong tree in their attempt to prevent these landing injuries. People who make hard turns at low altitude (via riser or toggle) have much more potential for injury than those who fly the canopy straight in, no matter what the wing loading.

You don't think higher WL's are more dangerous?

Derek


freakbrother  (D License)

Jan 16, 2005, 9:16 AM
Post #19 of 295 (2837 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Pro WL BSR folks are barking up the wrong tree in their attempt to prevent these landing injuries. People who make hard turns at low altitude (via riser or toggle) have much more potential for injury than those who fly the canopy straight in, no matter what the wing loading.

You don't think higher WL's are more dangerous?

Derek

A wingloading, in and of itself, is neither safe nor dangerous.

A high wingloading combined with insufficient skill AND judgment is dangerous.

Jump numbers != skill
Jump numbers != judgment
skill != judgment


nathaniel

Jan 16, 2005, 10:48 AM
Post #20 of 295 (2817 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Money should never be opposite saftey. Period.

That's a romantic way to put it, but it's still utterly impractical. Each one of us has to accept that at any given time he has X amount of dollars, and come to terms with how much safety he can afford and how much risk he's willing to accept.

To me, that some people are resistant to advice from people they ought to and probably do trust is a strong indicator of their will.

nathaniel


pash

Jan 16, 2005, 11:28 AM
Post #21 of 295 (2807 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

As I worked my way through AFP and my A-Liscense, I noticed that there were times that I thought I did a "less than stellar" dive. My instructors and coaches for the most part always gave me positive feedback and I'm not 100% sure of this, but I believe that it may be common to praise students in the early stages in an effort to keep them in the sport.

I made it clear early on, however, that I had no ego to be bruised (when it came to this sport) and encouraged good, honest criticism of the dive.

I had an instructor tell me that he was committing a "cardinal sin" when he evaluated my first solo exit at 13.5k' as "weak" when my next jump was going to be the low solo. He asked that I do another high solo first. I am so thankful that he put aside any concern that a student couldn't take criticism. The next exit was awesome (in my solo opinion and in that of my instructor).

If there were some BSR, the "fucksticks" may not like it. It could, however, really help prevent a "fuckstick mill" because us newbies and those coming after us really wouldn't know the difference. It would be a plan in place that you must simply go through and that's that.

I think the idea that we're trying to save the lives of people who don't know how to save their own life and body is commendable. I have not heard an arguement from anyone that this wouldn't SAVE lives. I guess the crux of the argument is what form it would take.

I once heard that most deaths in skydiving could be attributed to someone attempting something beyond their skill level. What would be the problem in formally evaluating and documenting someone's skill level before allowing them to go wild with anything they want?

I can differentiate the experienced skydivers from the government and big brother. They are black and white. No government official has ever asked me to practice tracking dives with them, but an Australian National Freefly Champion has. He truly had my well-being in mind. "Follow the money" - we've all heard it. What financial incentive would a 1,000+ skydiver have in recommending this plan?

I DON'T CARE if it costs lowbies more money. Be the first to say you went through the program. Take some pride in it.

It's as honest a plan as there is and I'm happy to be around to see it discussed. I don't think we have to worry that it's a "Patriot Act" in disguise. Prove you can do it THEN do it. If you're breaking femurs or leaving this world behind then you took it too fast.


(This post was edited by pash on Jan 16, 2005, 11:43 AM)


pash

Jan 16, 2005, 11:39 AM
Post #22 of 295 (2803 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Money should never be opposite saftey. Period.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to:
That's a romantic way to put it, but it's still utterly impractical. Each one of us has to accept that at any given time he has X amount of dollars, and come to terms with how much safety he can afford and how much risk he's willing to accept.

To me, that some people are resistant to advice from people they ought to and probably do trust is a strong indicator of their will.

nathaniel

Brakes cost money. If I don't have them I don't drive. It cost me money and time to get my driver's liscence. In 1920 I suppose anyone could drive.

There was a requirement for me to prove a lot in skydiving before I was afforded the LUXURY of skydiving by myself and with my friends. Just because I am closer to the ground doesn't mean I am afforded the LUXURY of hooking it in with a high WL. Let me gradually prove to you that I can first.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 16, 2005, 11:57 AM
Post #23 of 295 (2799 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakbrother] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
A wingloading, in and of itself, is neither safe nor dangerous.

A high wingloading combined with insufficient skill AND judgment is dangerous.

I disagree. What you are saying is that with increase skill and experience a higher WL isn't any more dangerous. But what we are talking about is a fixed experience level, i.e. 100/200/300/400, etc jumps and WL. Given someone with 100 jumps, a higher WL is more dangerous. Once they accrue more jumps and experience, that danger level will come back down, but initially, there is an increase is the risk level.

Increasing WL increases risk, in and of itself. A jumper with 100 jumps at 1:1 is safer than a jumper 1 with 100 jumps at 2:1, all other things being equal.

That is why the proposals tie in # jumps to WL. No proposal are so simplistic in that leaves out jump #'s and focuses entirely WL. In fact the proposal I support and I think every other WL BSR proposal includes a max WL for jump # experience, mandatory education/training, and an option to demonstrate their superior abilities in order to exceed the max WL for their jump #'s. This is because the higher the WL, the higher the risk factor, not every jumper should be held to the limit if they can demonstrate they can handle a higher WL, and w/o education and training the jumper can simply accrue jumps w/o learning anything and go to higher WL’s. Will any WL BSR and education/training proposal stop low-turn injuries and fatalities? No, of course not. It will prevent a lot of them and lessen the extent of injuries that do happen though. This is because, as you said, as a jumper gains more experience, they are able to handle the higher WL’s. Unfortunately, right now, they are downsizing faster than they are gaining experience and don’t have the experience to recognize the level of risk they are subjecting themselves to.

Allowing a jumper with 100 jumps to fly a canopy loaded at 2:1 puts that jumper at a very high risk. You cannot say WL is a major risk factor.

Derek


nathaniel

Jan 16, 2005, 12:07 PM
Post #24 of 295 (2797 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Brakes cost money.
Brakes are an excellent example, because you don't just have brakes or not have brakes (on cars, anyway). Well, you do, but that's not the whole story.

Newer brakes, generally, are safer than older brakes. But you don't have to replace your brakes when the dealer / manufacturer suggests, and lots of people don't. People get to decide when they replace their brakes depending on their desire for safety and how much they're willing to spend.

Careful with the analogy, tho.

The analogy breaks down, because, among other things, the capability of a set of brakes is a mechanical contraption that is easily measured.

While you are allowed to drive without brakes in some states (on certain historical vehicles, and probably not on highways), generally one can't test out of having brakes, no matter how many hours or cars one has driven.


pash

Jan 16, 2005, 12:17 PM
Post #25 of 295 (2793 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Newer brakes, generally, are safer than older brakes. But you don't have to replace your brakes when the dealer / manufacturer suggests, and lots of people don't. People get to decide when they replace their brakes depending on their desire for safety and how much they're willing to spend.

These are not people I would want on the road with me.

In reply to:
The analogy breaks down, because, among other things, the capability of a set of brakes is a mechanical contraption that is easily measured.

So is a WL BSR. Why is this not agreed upon as EASILY MEASURED? Either you can demonstrate or you cannot.

In reply to:
While you are allowed to drive without brakes in some states (on certain historical vehicles, and probably not on highways), generally one can't test out of having brakes, no matter how many hours or cars one has driven.

this would be an excellent argument you make. Hence the "grandfather clause."

For the "brand-new" Toyota-owning jumpers out there - brakes wouldn't be an option - just a requirement. What's wrong with that requirement?


nathaniel

Jan 16, 2005, 12:21 PM
Post #26 of 295 (1297 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
These are not people I would want on the road with me.

You don't have to share the road with them, you can stay at home. Or just keep a safe distance.

Quote:
What's wrong with that requirement?
Well, for starters, it's off topic Tongue. Just about all the BSR proposals have included some way of testing out, either through experience or through some sort of test.


pash

Jan 16, 2005, 12:47 PM
Post #27 of 295 (1290 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
These are not people I would want on the road with me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In reply to:
You don't have to share the road with them, you can stay at home. Or just keep a safe distance.


Really? I work for a living and really in NJ driving is not an option. If you want to live and work, you must drive. How would you feel about this if some ass killed someone you know because they were too cheap to get brakes?? Don't brakes save lives? ISN'T THAT THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION?

Quote:
What's wrong with that requirement?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to:
Well, for starters, it's off topic . Just about all the BSR proposals have included some way of testing out, either through experience or through some sort of test

It's not off topic. It is the first word IN THE TOPIC.

My name is Jason Upchurch and I skydive at Crosskeys in NJ and have a total of 30 jumps. I don't know anything about your jump numbers or rating so I'm not sure what angle you're coming from. Let me know if you can.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 16, 2005, 1:07 PM
Post #28 of 295 (1283 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
My name is Jason Upchurch and I skydive at Crosskeys in NJ and have a total of 30 jumps. I don't know anything about your jump numbers or rating so I'm not sure what angle you're coming from. Let me know if you can.

Some people seem more comfortable being a noise from the dark rather than a voice in the light of day.

Sparky


nathaniel

Jan 16, 2005, 1:14 PM
Post #29 of 295 (1280 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Don't brakes save lives? ISN'T THAT THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION?

Brakes save lives by comparison to how many people would die if they attempted to drive the same way except for not having brakes. But that's not a fair comparison, people wouldn't drive the same way if they didn't have brakes. What brakes do, essentially, is allow you to drive differently (ie, faster, and closer to other cars).

You should not expect all people would fly their canopies the same way if they were required to buy a canopy that performs differently from the one they'd have purchased without restriction.

nathaniel


nathaniel

Jan 16, 2005, 1:18 PM
Post #30 of 295 (1274 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Some people seem more comfortable being a noise from the dark rather than a voice in the light of day.

Some people live lives that are vulnerable to the types of villains that are known to patrol these boards.

Come to Chicago when it's warm & I'll jump with you if you doubt my integrity, or perhaps I'll look you up next time I'm in your vicinity, if you like.

nathaniel


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 16, 2005, 1:34 PM
Post #31 of 295 (1267 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Some people seem more comfortable being a noise from the dark rather than a voice in the light of day.

Some people live lives that are vulnerable to the types of villains that are known to patrol these boards.

Come to Chicago when it's warm & I'll jump with you if you doubt my integrity, or perhaps I'll look you up next time I'm in your vicinity, if you like.

nathaniel

I agree that what happened to PK was inexcusable. But if you are not doing something wrong in the first place the villain has no leverage. I give them my home address and tell them to bring it on.

Sparky


pash

Jan 16, 2005, 1:57 PM
Post #32 of 295 (1257 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Some people live lives that are vulnerable to the types of villains that are known to patrol these boards.

I appreciate what you are saying. There are malicious people all around and the internet is no exception. I was only asking about your jump numbers so that I can better assess what group you're coming from. No personal information requested really. I just noticed that it's people in my category that seem to be disagreeing with the idea of a WL BSR (i.e. those that would be required to show the proficiency before a high WL). If you were 1,000 plus (or grandfathered as one of the proposals suggests) then this would put you in the minority. What is the motive for opposing a BSR?

Those for the BSR are promoting saving lives.

The only opposition seems to be money. Even then there is a "test-out" proposal floating out there as well.

I wouldn't care if it costs more money to skydive. I have a will and therefore a way.

Quote:
Come to Chicago when it's warm & I'll jump with you if you doubt my integrity, or perhaps I'll look you up next time I'm in your vicinity, if you like.

This is awesome and a true testament to the community of this sport.


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Jan 16, 2005, 5:28 PM
Post #33 of 295 (1235 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

just curious....what about those of us that jump at non-sanctioned DZs? we are very safety concious at my home DZ but not all BSRs are followed (actually all are except the minimum age). i jump a sabre 190 w/l @ about 1.2 - never had a standup landing until i jumped that canopy (recommended to me by my coaches, the DZO and the S&TAs).
wouldnt a minimum w/l BSR just create a run to non-sanctioned DZs?


(This post was edited by crotalus01 on Jan 16, 2005, 5:28 PM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 16, 2005, 5:35 PM
Post #34 of 295 (1229 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
wouldnt a minimum w/l BSR just create a run to non-sanctioned DZs?

That is a whole other issue altogether. I can't think of a single DZ that follows all the BSR's. Look at the poll in the Instructors forum. The vast majority feel DZO's put $ ahead of safety.

The problem is USPA gets it's $ from jumpers that are required to have membership by the DZO's. This puts USPA's purse strings in the hands of DZO's. So if USPA does something that DZO's don't like, they can pull the strings and cut off USPA. So you have the orgasnization that is making and enforcing the rules being control by the people they are supposed to be regulating. IOW, the fox is guarding the henhouse.

Derek


crewkeith  (B 24861)

Jan 16, 2005, 8:28 PM
Post #35 of 295 (1209 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

there are a lot of people out there with lots of money that make lots of jumps and learn nothing and listen to no one. what about the ones with 300 jumps that still frap in every jump but now they can do it with a smaller canopy cause they have the numbers to get it ???


education.


.


pash

Jan 16, 2005, 10:29 PM
Post #36 of 295 (1195 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crewkeith] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
there are a lot of people out there with lots of money that make lots of jumps and learn nothing and listen to no one. what about the ones with 300 jumps that still frap in every jump but now they can do it with a smaller canopy cause they have the numbers to get it ???

Hence the proficiency card. Not just jump numbers but more an evaluation. It's not foolproof. Any fool can still manage to kill themselves despite the best efforts of others to prevent it. I see people trying to solve a problem and I'm on board with that. I like the jump number idea with respect to the WL ratio but a liscence requirement and attention to the hook turns should be considered as well. Again, from someone who has never attempted a hp landing with a high WL ratio


In reply to:
education.
zactly.

jason


pash

Jan 16, 2005, 10:46 PM
Post #37 of 295 (1194 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
just curious....what about those of us that jump at non-sanctioned DZs? we are very safety concious at my home DZ but not all BSRs are followed (actually all are except the minimum age). i jump a sabre 190 w/l @ about 1.2 - never had a standup landing until i jumped that canopy (recommended to me by my coaches, the DZO and the S&TAs).
wouldnt a minimum w/l BSR just create a run to non-sanctioned DZs?

My first two tandem jumps were at a non-USPA sanctioned DZ. With that said, I don't know hwo this USPA BSR would affect non-USPA-sanctioned DZ's.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 17, 2005, 4:25 AM
Post #38 of 295 (1174 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Money should never be opposite saftey. Period.

Well, clearly money is part of the equation. Everyone has explained to me that the cost of losing USPA membership is not an acceptable price of the BSR, hence safety will be sacrified in the name of grandfathering.

Raising the cost of an A license by X dollars will result in the loss of Y new jumpers. It may be *only* 10%, could be less, could be more. But there's no shortage of people posting here that can only do a jump or two at a time. Often they're advised to save their money up to do the training in a shorter time frame. Some of them will be lost with any incremental increase in the student costs.

Even for those that still make it through, that extra money may translate into money that doesn't go to manufacturers. They may gain in more frequent canopy/container sales, but I suspect otherwise.

So let's stick to reality - money does matter and must be considered when you hit diminishing returns.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 17, 2005, 4:37 AM
Post #39 of 295 (1172 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Part of the problem is the ones you mentioned could give a shit less about someone else. To the ones you mentioned in your first paragraph its all about "me". They feel they should not have to earn anything, everything is their right.

Fuck it, let Darwin have them. The deserve each other.

I am sick and tired of debating death with some punk who can't find his ass with both hands and a flashlight.

So in giving me a backhanding compliment about my debating ability, you suggested I only harped on the negatives. And yet, all you've done is bitch that low timers aren't qualified to talk. In short, nothing constructive at all, just sanctioned personal attacks. This approach has cowed many people into silence on this topic, but is hardly a form of leadership. I'm suppose to respect this?

And if your drive is based on intense personal experiences, rather than objective thinking, how are you different from the mom that wrote "Jumping Through Clouds?"


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 17, 2005, 4:47 AM
Post #40 of 295 (1171 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

I agree that what happened to PK was inexcusable. But if you are not doing something wrong in the first place the villain has no leverage. I give them my home address and tell them to bring it on.

Like when his Ex called the police on him and had his firearms taken away? Even on an unfounded charge, the damage is already done before the target can defend himself.

I hadn't even realized what happened - in light of that I agree with Nathaniel. We got too many people here who can't be trusted to play nice.


Ron

Jan 17, 2005, 5:43 AM
Post #41 of 295 (1147 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

You are a smart dude....I'll jump with you anytime.


Ron

Jan 17, 2005, 5:47 AM
Post #42 of 295 (1146 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crewkeith] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
education.

Yep that is THE answer.

I would like to see a program in place that MAKES people get that education. And then PROVE they can handle and apply it before they are allowed to try.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jan 17, 2005, 8:19 AM
Post #43 of 295 (1126 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
what about those of us that jump at non-sanctioned DZs?

not all BSRs are followed (actually all are except the minimum age)

Non USPA DZ's follow the BSR's (partially) in an attempt to adhere to the 'standard industry practice'. In the case of a lawsuit, you can avoid neglegence claims by folowing 'standard indusrty practice'. If you do it the way every other DZ, as well as the USPA reccomends, the injured party was a victim of bad luck, and as outlined in the waiver, skydiving is dangerous, and you are choosing to make a jump of your own free will.

Why your DZ is soft on the age policy, I don't know (most likely to attract more students, and thier money). Whatever the case may, be a WL BSR doens;t present a financial advantage or disadvatage to the DZO.

Additionally, the presence of a Wl BSR sends a message to students and newbies that this is a valid area of concern, and if your DZ enforces it or not, it is worthy of some consideration when selecting your canopies.

Quote:
never had a standup landing until i jumped that canopy

This is a function of your training, as well as the canopies you had been previously jumping, and not related to WL. If your student canopies were clapped out F-111 (like mnay student canopies), you would be hard pressed to have a nice landing on them. If you were given a Sabre 210 (as opposed to your 190) I'm sure that would have wroked just fine for you as well.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 17, 2005, 12:26 PM
Post #44 of 295 (1090 views)
Shortcut
Re: [parachutist] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>Pro WL BSR folks are barking up the wrong tree in their attempt to
> prevent these landing injuries. People who make hard turns at low
> altitude (via riser or toggle) have much more potential for injury
> than those who fly the canopy straight in . . . .

Ah, but people who CAN turn low have a much lower potential for injury. A very large percentage of injuries occur to people who never hook turn (and thus don't know how) who try to turn low. Someone who had a little flat-turn education is not at as much rish.

> Answer: Continue on your current path.

Everyone tells students that. No one does it. It's like telling people to go to their reserve if they ever get low - they just won't do it unless they PRACTICE it.

>Jumpers need a healthy fear of turns at low altitude instead of new
> WL restrictions. No panic turns. No HP turns until they've passed a
> training course.

Will you ban them from the DZ after they make a panic turn and kill themselves? BSR's that are really only enforceable after someone is seriously injured or killed aren't that useful. If they were useful, we'd just have a BSR that said "do not get seriously injured or killed" and the problem would go away.

If anything, prohibiting people from practicing low turns will lead to less educated jumpers and therefore more fatalities from people turning too low without knowing how. Education is the only thing that can solve this problem, and a wing loading BSR is a good way to force them to _get_ that education.


dorbie

Jan 17, 2005, 2:05 PM
Post #45 of 295 (1062 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Because the way I see it, it's those that want to downsize to an aggressive WL ratio that also want the hp landings.

Actually, I find it quite interesting, and it seems I have heard a lot lately, jumpers defending their High WL (and/or HP canopy choice) conversely with statements like: "yeah, but even at 1.5(+):1 I am 'safe' because I am not either hook turning or performing HP landings".

"Higher performance" canopies are more fun to fly and beginner-intermediate jumpers are permitted to have fun too, not just the skygods or self-appointed canopy police (some of whom have already made insane downsizing judgement calls I'd never make and bounced).

Arguments in favor of additional restrictions are full of untested assumptions like people who downsize are the ones doing the hook turns, this matters to me because it's my choices they seek to restrict and they've never seen me fly a canopy or discussed my safety choices or thought processes. Even if some of these assumptions were true the outcome of a wing loading chart for example may be counter productive, if someone is getting bored with their 1.0 loaded canopy are they more likely or less to try a low level turn?

All sorts of red herrings are thrown in here like inability to do flat turns to justify inappropriate training. I can play that game too:

Most people bounce because they intentionally turn low and screw up. You can do that on any canopy and have a bad day and you're more likely to do it if you're not getting what you want from the canopy you're flying because some canopy nazi has taken the fun from an important part of your chosen sport.


(This post was edited by dorbie on Jan 17, 2005, 2:06 PM)


chrisgr  (C License)

Jan 17, 2005, 3:16 PM
Post #46 of 295 (1034 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

What do you define as ‘higher performance’ canopies?

What do you consider to be ‘inappropriate training’?


Most people who favor the proposals do not wish to restrict your choices without giving you the opportunity to demonstrate your abilities. The proposals recommend that a qualified instructor watches and evaluates your CC skills and ‘discusses your safety choices and thought processes’.

If you can demonstrate your skills and pass the evaluation, you can fly your canopy of choice.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 17, 2005, 3:20 PM
Post #47 of 295 (1031 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>Money should never be opposite saftey. Period.

It always is. Does Perris have a VR canopy simulator? Do they have all their students spend 20 minutes in the tunnel before their first release dive? Does Perris (or any DZ) maintain their aircraft to part-121 standards? Is there a guy who stands in the main landing area all day to make sure the tetrahedron is always pointing in the right direction, to help prevent traffic problems?

The reason DZ's don't do the things above is because they are expensive and inconvenient. The trick is finding a balance that's safe enough while being cheap enough to be practical.


dorbie

Jan 17, 2005, 3:38 PM
Post #48 of 295 (1024 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chrisgr] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What do you define as ‘higher performance’ canopies?

This is exactly why I put it in quotes. It's an ambiguous term but higher speed and more responsive to control input would do for now.

In reply to:
What do you consider to be ‘inappropriate training’?

Training with the good intention of improving safety that doesn't address the skills shortages or attitudes that actually lead to the majority of fatalities that are used to 'sell' the training requirement.

I like Fineman's example so let me borrow it. If you want to get rich you might study rich people and after a lengthy process observe that rich people tend take a lot of shirts to the dry cleaners. You might then conclude that to get rich you need only send a bunch of shirts to be dry cleaned each week. It is obviously an incorrect conclusion. Unfortunately this is about the level of science being applied to BSRs on canopy sizes (as one example), especially when they are set conservatively and the outcome may be counter productive when you wind up boring jumpers who want to progress.

In reply to:
Most people who favor the proposals do not wish to restrict your choices without giving you the opportunity to demonstrate your abilities. The proposals recommend that a qualified instructor watches and evaluates your CC skills and ‘discusses your safety choices and thought processes’.

If you can demonstrate your skills and pass the evaluation, you can fly your canopy of choice.

That's not what a conservative wing loading chart based on a single metric (jump numbers) represents nor how it will be applied to me.


(This post was edited by dorbie on Jan 17, 2005, 3:42 PM)


obelixtim  (D 84)

Jan 17, 2005, 3:54 PM
Post #49 of 295 (1013 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

 Ah....the ignorance of the selfish generation......me me me me me.....its all about self.....

Listen up mate.....most people bounce on good canopies because they do stupid things low down without leaving themselves any margin for error.....

We all want to have fun, but there are limits, from the time you begin your 1st jump training, till you do 100, 1000, 10000 jumps.....no one is "free" to do everything they want without restriction.....life just ain't like that.....for anyone.....

I've never had "fun" dealing with death and injury, because its MY job AND responsibility to prevent that happening.....and it sure does spoil my day, week, month or year even.....

Most of the "canopy Nazi's" are jumpers who have as much right to enjoy their skydiving as you do, however part of their responsibilities involve keeping people safe on the DZ, failure to do that means that ultimately, DZ's would be forced to close.

Operating a DZ means complying with a myriad of laws, all of which are imposed by outside agencies.....CAA, State, and Federal laws......and DZ's don't just exist by accident.......it is damn hard work, and it never ends.......failure to comply means shutdown......

Where are you gonna jump then????.....

Bad PR can kill a DZ easily.....and the media just love to jump on skydiving as a source of headlines.......people don't want to come to a DZ with a bad safety record.....whether its the DZ's fault or not......

I want to protect my sport, my livelihood, and that of my 25 staff, so we can continue to enjoy, and let others enjoy our passion far into the future......also my huge investment in aircraft, equipment and facilities means a lot to me.........

If you choose to threaten all that because you refuse to accept my advice or instruction, and you are stupid, irresponsible, or just plain careless, then you are not welcome at my DZ......

You want freedom to do what you want???.....go start your own DZ........

All we're trying to do is to make it happen SAFELY for everyone.....even you.....

Calling concerned people "Nazis" is way out of line......and if you did it to my face, I'd punch you in the mouth......


stratostar  (Student)

Jan 17, 2005, 4:03 PM
Post #50 of 295 (1008 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

"Higher performance" canopies are more fun to fly and beginner-intermediate jumpers are permitted to have fun too, not just the skygods or self-appointed canopy police (some of whom have already made insane downsizing judgement calls I'd never make and bounced). (quote)

Do you want to buy my stiletto 107 it's for sale cheap
should be a lot of fun for you....Sly

~


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 17, 2005, 4:05 PM
Post #51 of 295 (1076 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>"Higher performance" canopies are more fun to fly and
> beginner-intermediate jumpers are permitted to have fun too, not just
>the skygods or self-appointed canopy police (some of whom have already
> made insane downsizing judgement calls I'd never make and bounced).

I agree. On the other hand, if you can't have fun with a canopy loaded at 1.2 to 1, you need more education, not a smaller (or more elliptical) canopy. Periodically, a good canopy pilot will take up a big Spectre and get better surfs out of it than the newer jumpers on their 1.4 loaded Crossfires. It's always fun to watch their reactions as the canopy they considered a boat comes screaming across the grass.

>Arguments in favor of additional restrictions are full of untested
> assumptions like people who downsize are the ones doing the hook
> turns . . .

?? No it's not. Indeed, canopy loading restrictions would have far more effect on people who claim "I will never hookturn!" because they're the ones getting bent and broken when they have to turn low - and don't know how.

>Even if some of these assumptions were true the outcome of a wing
> loading chart for example may be counter productive, if someone is
> getting bored with their 1.0 loaded canopy are they more likely or less
> to try a low level turn?

More likely! And that's EXACTLY what such regulations will encourage. People will learn to flat turn their Spectre 150 instead of coming in straight all the time, terrified of turning their Vengeance 107. (They're not turning them, of course, because they are 'being safe.')

What's killing people is not the canopy or the loading. It is the lack of experience/education/training on the part of the canopy pilot. The most basic part of any canopy loading restriction is the required education that goes along with it. It is the education, not the wing loading BSR's, that will save lives. The BSR just forces you to get it by keeping you at lower loadings until you do.

>Most people bounce because they intentionally turn low and screw up.
> You can do that on any canopy and have a bad day and you're more
> likely to do it if you're not getting what you want from the canopy
> you're flying because some canopy nazi has taken the fun from an
> important part of your chosen sport.

If there are jumpers out there who are that stupid, then at least they will hit the ground under a Pilot 150 instead of a Xaos 98 - and the result will be dealing with a broken leg instead of dealing with living without the use of their arms or legs.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 17, 2005, 4:06 PM
Post #52 of 295 (1076 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>and if you did it to my face, I'd punch you in the mouth......

Your one warning. No threats of ANY kind.


dorbie

Jan 17, 2005, 4:33 PM
Post #53 of 295 (1069 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Ah....the ignorance of the selfish generation......me me me me me.....its all about self.....

Listen up mate.....most people bounce on good canopies because they do stupid things low down without leaving themselves any margin for error.....

.

You listen up, you're not my mate, especially not with comments like that and your threats (that speak volumes), spare me the ad hominem about my selfishness, I'm not imposing my opinion in an attempt to restrict your actions, you are.

You need to read my quote in the context of saying "I can play that game too" I wouldn't disagree with your second observation but that includes stupid things like intentional low turns.

If someone's going to impose new training requirements for stuff I was already training for during AFF then they need to back it up with more than this.

I have a right to argue against someone imposing inflexible restrictions on me because of someone else's poor judgement, lack of skill or sheer stupidity. It's not just about me, me, me, it's about all the other jumpers that have to tollerate new restrictions imposed based on guesswork, opinion and the nannying attitude of people some of whom have downsized or flown far more recklessly than anything I've done or ever intend to.

I follow the advice of experiend jumpers, DZ staff and instructors when it comes to downsizing, this is not about me just wanting to do whatever the hell I like despite your attempts to represent this as such.

If all you do is attack any dissenting voices from the people the proposed rules affect the most then I guess you're destined for unanimous agreement, so continue to pat yourselves on the back and congratulate eachother about what a wonderful job you're doing for safety.


(This post was edited by dorbie on Jan 17, 2005, 4:46 PM)


dorbie

Jan 17, 2005, 5:13 PM
Post #54 of 295 (1058 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
"Higher performance" canopies are more fun to fly and beginner-intermediate jumpers are permitted to have fun too, not just the skygods or self-appointed canopy police (some of whom have already made insane downsizing judgement calls I'd never make and bounced). (quote)

Do you want to buy my stiletto 107 it's for sale cheap
should be a lot of fun for you....Sly

~

...fun right down to the last few feet.Wink

Not quite what I had in mind, my current wing loading is < 1.2 on a docile 7 cell. The proposed wingloading table would prevent me jumping the canopy tomorrow that I've already got about 100 jumps on. I've never had anything I didn't expect from my current canopy, it's very predictable and I've had to turn it low due to traffic more than once, I feel very safe with this canopy and always have.


(This post was edited by dorbie on Jan 17, 2005, 5:43 PM)


crewkeith  (B 24861)

Jan 17, 2005, 5:30 PM
Post #55 of 295 (1042 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

im sure everyones read the little tag on your canopy. why arent manufactures recomendations turned to requirements??? then liscense people according to what the little tag says. i think pd has 4 classes on their canopys. some one might look to see what they are exactly. i think it is student, novice, advanced, and expert. there are your liscenses and wingloadings to go with them.and it kinda takes out the canopy type a little. just spitballing here so just a thought


.


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Jan 17, 2005, 5:36 PM
Post #56 of 295 (1035 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Quote:
never had a standup landing until i jumped that canopy

This is a function of your training, as well as the canopies you had been previously jumping, and not related to WL. If your student canopies were clapped out F-111 (like mnay student canopies), you would be hard pressed to have a nice landing on them. If you were given a Sabre 210 (as opposed to your 190) I'm sure that would have wroked just fine for you as well.
i agree completely. actually it was going from a hybrid 210 where i could not feel the flare to zpo where the flare is obvious. my point was that the 190 was recommended to me by everyone i jump with. i am obviously w/l at over the conventional wisdom presented here (1.2:1). everyone progresses through the myriad of skills involved at a different pace. i am not against a w/l BSR necessarilly, but it should definitely be one that you can test out of.


chrisgr  (C License)

Jan 17, 2005, 5:40 PM
Post #57 of 295 (1032 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

It sounds like you have a good handle on your current canopy and you may be able to demonstrate the survival skills required to progress to another canopy.

The proposed w/l table will NOT prevent you from jumping a canopy that you can safely fly.

Again … the proposals recommend that a qualified instructor watches and evaluates your CC skills and ‘discusses your safety choices and thought processes’. If you can demonstrate your skills and pass the evaluation, you can fly your canopy of choice.

Did your AFF training include all of the skills on Bill’s list?
http://www.dropzone.com/...etail_page.cgi?ID=47


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 17, 2005, 5:54 PM
Post #58 of 295 (1019 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crewkeith] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

> im sure everyones read the little tag on your canopy.

You think so, eh? Most people never read the manuals that come with their rigs or reserves. No one I have seen rent gear at Perris ever looks at the data panel on the mains they rent. Someone might do it, but they are very much in the minority if they do.

>why arent manufactures recomendations turned to requirements???

What do you mean? All canopy manufacturers have some sort of requirement, usually vauge. PD goes by student-novice-beginner-intermediate-advanced-expert. Hiper just has min/max loadings. Aerodyne goes by student-intermediate-advanced. There are no criteria listed. A new jumper could say "Well, I've never fallen down in 100 jumps, so I must be an expert."

>there are your liscenses and wingloadings to go with them.and it kinda
>takes out the canopy type a little. just spitballing here so just a thought

Well, the problem there is that such a system would prevent a novice from buying a Pilot 168 loaded at 1.3 to 1 but would be OK with a Blade 88, since you are within the legal loading (per Hiper) as long as your exit weight is under 220 lbs. There's no standardization in the system. It's even worse than the "how-we-measure-canopy-size" problem, because there ARE no standards for canopy training now. Implementing a USPA canopy coach rating (with syllabus and standards) could help change that.


stratostar  (Student)

Jan 17, 2005, 6:16 PM
Post #59 of 295 (1011 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

That is good, cause I wouldn't sell it to you with the jump numbers you have right now, that would irrespondsible of me to do so. Or any other gear dealer to do so.Angelic All though some would, that don't make it the right thing to do!Mad

~


dorbie

Jan 17, 2005, 6:25 PM
Post #60 of 295 (1004 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chrisgr] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It sounds like you have a good handle on your current canopy and you may be able to demonstrate the survival skills required to progress to another canopy.

The proposed w/l table will NOT prevent you from jumping a canopy that you can safely fly.

Again … the proposals recommend that a qualified instructor watches and evaluates your CC skills and ‘discusses your safety choices and thought processes’. If you can demonstrate your skills and pass the evaluation, you can fly your canopy of choice.

Did your AFF training include all of the skills on Bill’s list?
http://www.dropzone.com/...etail_page.cgi?ID=47

OK that sounds a lot better, there's a difference between wing loading restrictions that prevent obviously reckless choices and those that seem conservative and that colors my view here. Since it seems inevitable that any table will eventually become the WL ceiling at some DZs it causes me concern, and not really for my ability to jump, by the time this evolves into a BSR I will probably have made many more jumps, however meeting the requirements personally doesn't make me any more inclined to approve the measure if it's seen as a hard ceiling for other jumpers.

I didn't make my canopy choice without discussing it with instructors and one DZO who saw me jump and saw my log book and it did have an influence.

w.r.t. the list, a few not most (and the crosswind landing wasn't exactly planned, that was an aborted turn to final when I got myself too low after a bad spot, it was something I was trained to do instead of a low turn onto final fortunately I remembered it on my second(?) jump), some I won't do (uphill landing, why invite the risk, I'll take the risk if/when I'm forced to) and at least one is a profficiency test for something AFF teaches.


(This post was edited by dorbie on Jan 17, 2005, 6:49 PM)


crewkeith  (B 24861)

Jan 17, 2005, 6:35 PM
Post #61 of 295 (996 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

they are kinda recommendations arent they?? make them mandatory limits. PD has weights that go with classes. also they have n/r in there too. why dont we make canopy licenses that correspond with those limits, the ones printed on the canopy. make the manufactures, the people that did the r&d on the canopy, post the limits of the caonpy for each of the licenses?? and make people adhere to those limits. some one gets ready to move from novice to advanced make a test to do it. make them hit a target ten times. not just hit the peas but have a target to move around the dz. a lot of people fly landmarks. move the peas and they cant hit em to save their ass. make them get a 4 stack. not just go get pinned either, make them come on last. hell strap weight on their ass so they are at their next wingloading and have them go jump to see if they really like what they are about to go do.most of all make them get coaching. make it a freefall licence requirement. i drove the taxi from the landing area to the hangar for a year and a half just so i could watch people land. see what to do and not to do. it aint just the ones that get hurt or killed. there are a lot of scary jumpers out there that just use their canopy as a life boat. they are gonna be next. all they need is education. make scott miller's essentail skills course an A licence requirement. something along those lines i guess


bob.dino  (E 2185)

Jan 17, 2005, 7:33 PM
Post #62 of 295 (976 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

I think you may have missed one point of the proposed BSR. You can't fly a smaller, faster canopy until you've proven your ability. Once you've demonstrated your ability to the appropriate person, you're cleared to downsize.

So, the only additional hurdle that is being placed in your way is that you need to demonstrate the necessary survival skills before you downsize, rather than when you get into a tight spot under your smaller new canopy.

If you don't demonstrate that ability, you're restricted to the WNE chart.


(This post was edited by bob.dino on Jan 17, 2005, 7:34 PM)


dorbie

Jan 17, 2005, 7:58 PM
Post #63 of 295 (969 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bob.dino] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

That makes things a lot more palatable, thanks for explaining.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 17, 2005, 8:35 PM
Post #64 of 295 (951 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Part of the problem is the ones you mentioned could give a shit less about someone else. To the ones you mentioned in your first paragraph its all about "me". They feel they should not have to earn anything, everything is their right.

Fuck it, let Darwin have them. The deserve each other.

I am sick and tired of debating death with some punk who can't find his ass with both hands and a flashlight.

So in giving me a backhanding compliment about my debating ability, you suggested I only harped on the negatives. And yet, all you've done is bitch that low timers aren't qualified to talk. In short, nothing constructive at all, just sanctioned personal attacks. This approach has cowed many people into silence on this topic, but is hardly a form of leadership. I'm suppose to respect this?

And if your drive is based on intense personal experiences, rather than objective thinking, how are you different from the mom that wrote "Jumping Through Clouds?"

Don't put words in my mouth, I don't like the taste.

All you have done is complain and tear down any program that would impose some form of control. And if your profile is correct, you are not qualified to speak on the subject.

I am not trying to be yours or anyones leader, you can't lead a gaggle. And you hardly seem cowed into silence.

I really don't give a rats ass what you respect. But there are people that are way ahead of where you are trying to come up with a workable plan to keep people from dying under good canopies. They are doing this to help the sport, not to keep the newer jumper from realizing his dream of being a Swoop God. If he has the talent he will get there, if stupidity doesn't get him first.

As far as my drive, you wouldn't have a clue, so don't lose any sleep over it.

This says more about you then I ever could.

Real Name: Darwin's Buddy
Location: North America/United States/California
City: San Francisco
Email: No email entered.
Jump Profile
Home DZ: No home dropzone entered.
License: A 7
Number of Jumps: 49
Years in Sport: 9
Gear
Container: No container entered.
Main Canopy: No main entered.
Reserve Canopy: No reserve entered.
AAD: No AAD entered.


(This post was edited by mjosparky on Jan 18, 2005, 12:03 AM)


RippedCord  (B 26693)

Jan 17, 2005, 8:35 PM
Post #65 of 295 (950 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Doesn't this argument eventually boil down to where we draw the line on how many laws/rules we want to create to protect people from themselves?

(Enough so that the sport looks attractive to new people and so that you don't get shut down by the rest of society, and not so much that you completely absolve people from their own responsibility to themselves.)

My two cents: 'no' to a BSR on canopy loading.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 17, 2005, 8:46 PM
Post #66 of 295 (943 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crewkeith] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>why dont we make canopy licenses that correspond with those
>limits, the ones printed on the canopy.

Because then you would have to allow a novice jumper to jump a Blade 88 but not a Pilot 168 (if you go by canopy manufacturer's recommendations, that is.) That's nuts, and would result in us enforcing bad decisions.

We could do this if we could get all mfrs to agree on basic guidelines for their canopies. That's a little tough, since some mfrs are in (for example) germany, but you could have a 'default' list that applies if the manufacturer either doesn't want to do it or has insane limits for their gear.

>some one gets ready to move from novice to advanced make a
>test to do it. make them hit a target ten times. not just hit the peas
> but have a target to move around the dz. a lot of people fly
>landmarks. move the peas and they cant hit em to save their ass.
> make them get a 4 stack. not just go get pinned either, make them
> come on last. hell strap weight on their ass so they are at their next
> wingloading and have them go jump to see if they really like what
> they are about to go do.most of all make them get coaching.

All good ideas, and similar to the proposal we sent to USPA. Basically it added canopy skill requirements to each license, added a wingloading restriction to each license, then allow people to 'test out' of the restrictions by:

1. demonstrating proficiency in front of a canopy coach or S+TA

2. taking an approved canopy control class.

> all they need is education. make scott miller's essentail skills course
> an A licence requirement. something along those lines i guess

Sure, although I would do some at the A license, some more at the B license etc.


parachutist  (D 25468)

Jan 17, 2005, 9:04 PM
Post #67 of 295 (939 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Ah, but people who CAN turn low have a much lower potential for injury. A very large percentage of injuries occur to people who never hook turn (and thus don't know how) who try to turn low. Someone who had a little flat-turn education is not at as much rish.

Teach them from the start to be afraid of low turns. I was an example of an extreme downsizer at too few jumps, but a few rules kept me safe during landings: 1) No matter what may be going through your head, arms all the way up at 100 feet. 2) No more turns at this point.

These rules instilled me with fear of low turns and so whenever I was doing an approach and felt uneasy about it, I'd go to neutral: Arms all the way up, fly straight.... flare. Low turns came later. These rules got me safely through some extreme downsizing at low jump #'s with no broken bones. 1.9 WL at 400 (stiletto 120) and 2.3 WL at 550 (VX97)

Quote:
> Answer: Continue on your current path.

Everyone tells students that. No one does it. It's like telling people to go to their reserve if they ever get low - they just won't do it unless they PRACTICE it.

Have you tried to teach someone who started this sport doing tandem progression how to do a PLF? The first thing people learn is ingrained into them. No matter how much you drill them on the ground about PLF'ing when they come in, at least half of them are gong to go back to their first basic training when actually landing: Feet up, land on butt.

So yes, you can teach someone to have more fear of low turns than of whatever they may see in front of them come landing time. You can train them that straight-in approaches are the way to safety and they will soak it in, if you teach it from the beginning.

Eventually they should learn more about low turns during landings... but their base training should be - down to 100 ft? Arms up and prepare for landing. This is a good neutral

Quote:
If anything, prohibiting people from practicing low turns will lead to less educated jumpers and therefore more fatalities from people turning too low without knowing how.

Low-timers have no business doing low turns. Make them fear the low turn from their first training and they will only approach such turns when they are confident of the outcome... thinking three steps ahead before committing to it. Plan the approach so that there are no surprises at the last minute (Much like planning to avoid being in the corner)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 17, 2005, 9:47 PM
Post #68 of 295 (930 views)
Shortcut
Re: [parachutist] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>Teach them from the start to be afraid of low turns.

I believe this fear kills a lot of people. It's like telling a new driver that if someone cuts in front of them, take your hands off the wheel and your foot off the brake and let the airbags fire. It goes against everything else they have learned.

The problem, I believe, is not that jumpers turn too low in and of itself. It is that they make the wrong kind of turn too low. I can turn 90 degrees at 50 feet and pull off a decent landing - I might not stand it up but I won't break anything. It took a lot of practice to do that on a small canopy, but it's come in useful more than once. That is the skill we need to be teaching new jumpers - not "don't avoid collisions" but "here's how to turn to avoid a collision."

>These rules got me safely through some extreme downsizing at low
> jump #'s with no broken bones. 1.9 WL at 400 (stiletto 120) and
>2.3 WL at 550 (VX97)

I believe a lot of people don't learn survival skills like low turns because they downsize too quickly and are afraid of turning their canopy.

>but their base training should be - down to 100 ft? Arms up and
>prepare for landing. This is a good neutral.

For first jump students, I agree. Before you are "let loose" into the real world of unsupervised jumping, and without your telltale student canopy (which warns other people that you may not be able to avoid them) you have to learn low turns (IMO.)

>Low-timers have no business doing low turns. Make them fear the
> low turn from their first training and they will only approach such
> turns when they are confident of the outcome...

. . . or when their only option is turn or collide with someone. And on that day, if they have never practiced flat turns, they will probably wind up either dead (if they have downsized rapidly) or in the hospital (if they were smart enough to not downsize too fast.) If they have practiced them, they will turn and land with no problem.

I saw a really cool post one day from someone jumping a medium sized canopy (a Sabre 170 or something.) She was on final and realized that she was going to land in a barbed wire fence. She had read about flat turns and had tried them a few times, and she did one here, turning about 90 degrees at 100 feet. She avoided the fence but landed hard and sprained her ankle. That's the outcome we want when new jumpers find themselves in deep shit, flying downwind into a fence - a manuever that turns a fatality/serious injury into a sprained ankle.

Telling people to not do something that they may need to do to survive doesn't work well, in my experience. Teaching them how to make those manuevers safely works a lot better - even if learning to do them incurs some small amount of risk. If you're going to have to make a panic turn one day at 100 feet, you will be much better off if you've made a dozen of them at 200 feet than if you've never made any because you are afraid of turning your canopy too low.


dorbie

Jan 17, 2005, 10:36 PM
Post #69 of 295 (925 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RippedCord] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Doesn't this argument eventually boil down to where we draw the line on how many laws/rules we want to create to protect people from themselves?

(Enough so that the sport looks attractive to new people and so that you don't get shut down by the rest of society, and not so much that you completely absolve people from their own responsibility to themselves.)

My two cents: 'no' to a BSR on canopy loading.

I think so, the thing that concerns me the most here is where the line gets drawn and the basis for that decision.

It would be easy to impose a de facto WL table depending on where you set the bar for progression.


DancingFlame  (C 177476)

Jan 17, 2005, 11:53 PM
Post #70 of 295 (911 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I believe a lot of people don't learn survival skills like low turns because they downsize too quickly and are afraid of turning their canopy.
I believe it too. Before downsizing, one should fly current canopy to it's fully potential. Jump number means nothing. 500 straight landings are not a good reason to say 'I'm ready for downsizing!'

Proving skills before downsizing is the key. HP landing, flat turns, flare turns etc. Some accuracy will help too but there shouldn't be very strict rules (rectangle 250x100 ft should work).

At my home DZ every jumper MUST receive an approval from his instructor before downsizing. He cannot just bring the rig and jump it. If he jumps canopy too small for him without permission, he may be grounded for a day/week/month (anyway, he may ground himself for whole life). It seems very strict but it works good.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 17, 2005, 11:57 PM
Post #71 of 295 (909 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RippedCord] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Doesn't this argument eventually boil down to where we draw the line on how many laws/rules we want to create to protect people from themselves?

(Enough so that the sport looks attractive to new people and so that you don't get shut down by the rest of society, and not so much that you completely absolve people from their own responsibility to themselves.)

My two cents: 'no' to a BSR on canopy loading.

Hey Keith,

I have no stake in this debate other then I don't like it when jumper die. I have to many jumps for what they are proposing and if they want I'll take any "test out" they can come up with.

With out some form of control put on W/L vs numbers how do we prevent the newer jumpers from getting under canopies that their experience and knowledge can't handle in a tight situation? If all new jumpers used the sensible approach to choosing a canopy that I have seen you do, there wouldn't be this discussion, but many don't/won't.

What do you feel would be a workable program?

Sparky


Bartje  (E License)

Jan 18, 2005, 12:27 AM
Post #72 of 295 (902 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

I do have even a FX89 for sale,
thats faster for him to do a accident.

Dorbie, I'm already a rebel in my canopy course but you have show me that you are not ready to jump an other (faster) canopy yet. listen to the adivice and stay safe, I would not like to see you in the statistics.


gdmusumeci  (D 31787)

Jan 18, 2005, 12:33 AM
Post #73 of 295 (900 views)
Shortcut
Re: [parachutist] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I ask my students: "Suppose you're landing off the airport in a cow field... at 50 feet above the ground suddenly you notice there's a barbed wire fence in front of you... What do you do?" Answer: Continue on your current path. It's better to run into that fence and deal with the cuts/bruises than to turn at low altitude trying to avoid it, finding yourself in ambulance because you made a low turn.

How about a student progression that focuses just as much on canopy flight as it does on freefall skills? I'm not sure why a student (<50 jumps) with some proper instruction couldn't execute a fairly good flat turn and avoid both striking the fence and turning themselves into the ground.

I think that the skydiving community can impose all the restrictions it wants, but that doesn't solve the problem, which is fundamentally one of attitude and education.


bob.dino  (E 2185)

Jan 18, 2005, 1:07 AM
Post #74 of 295 (896 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gdmusumeci] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

A lot of people are missing the point here:

The restriction would apply only to people who can't demonstrate sufficient ability to fly a faster/smaller canopy. This ability is developed by obtaining education.

Ergo, the whole point of this proposal is to force people to seek education.


cloud9  (D 27635)

Jan 18, 2005, 5:01 AM
Post #75 of 295 (881 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

I have a question I'd like to know how you would handle in the wing loading BSR. Lets say at 200 jumps you buy a Pilot 150 your exit weight is 180 for a wing loading of 1.2
Ok now lets say over the course of 1 year you make 75 jumps and you gain 20 lbs. Now your wing loading is 1.33 at 275 jumps. Do you ground that person until they loose weight, let them jump their canopy? More importantly if you let them jump their canopy how do you word that in the BSR? This is not far fetched I did almost exactly this two years ago.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 18, 2005, 5:42 AM
Post #76 of 295 (1444 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cloud9] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I have a question I'd like to know how you would handle in the wing loading BSR. Lets say at 200 jumps you buy a Pilot 150 your exit weight is 180 for a wing loading of 1.2
Ok now lets say over the course of 1 year you make 75 jumps and you gain 20 lbs. Now your wing loading is 1.33 at 275 jumps. Do you ground that person until they loose weight, let them jump their canopy? More importantly if you let them jump their canopy how do you word that in the BSR? This is not far fetched I did almost exactly this two years ago.

It's already built in. Since the jumper would then exceed the maximum WL for their jump#'s, they would be required to demonstrate their ability to fly at that WL. If they couldn't do it, and therefore shouldn't be flying that canopy, yes, they wouln't be allowed to fly that canopy. If they could demonstrate their ability, then they are allowed to exceed the WL limit for their jump #'s.

Derek


parachutist  (D 25468)

Jan 18, 2005, 5:51 AM
Post #77 of 295 (1440 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
>but their base training should be - down to 100 ft? Arms up and
>prepare for landing. This is a good neutral.

For first jump students, I agree. Before you are "let loose" into the real world of unsupervised jumping, and without your telltale student canopy (which warns other people that you may not be able to avoid them) you have to learn low turns (IMO.)

That's confusing to newbies: teaching them one thing for safety, then making them unlearn that and retrain to a new safety path. People are easily confused when they're scared, and if they have something to go back to, something that they've learned from day 1... then they'll do that when concerned.

I see very few incident reports of jumpers who were injured because of no turn... the vast majority are caused by turns at low altitude that they didn't recover from.


dorbie

Jan 18, 2005, 5:55 AM
Post #78 of 295 (1440 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bartje] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I do have even a FX89 for sale,
thats faster for him to do a accident.

Dorbie, I'm already a rebel in my canopy course but you have show me that you are not ready to jump an other (faster) canopy yet. listen to the adivice and stay safe, I would not like to see you in the statistics.

I'm not asking for a permission slip to downsize so you've shown me that you haven't even read my posts properly.

I haven't shown you anything about my CC abilities, and according my initial interpretations these guys were saying I'm exceeding wingloading NOW despite the advice of people who've trained me and seen me jump and my uneventful canopy operation at my current wing loading for about a hundred jumps.

Having been on a CC course and sought additional canopy training and since these requirements are now being presented as a means to encourage people to seek such training I guess I'd qualify in some manner already.

Next time read my posts or even the rest of the thread before references to me downsizing to a canopy that will get me killed faster. I don't mind a joke but generic advice that's laden with supposition is one of the problems here. Just because I oppose a set of restrictions doesn't mean I have a deathwish. I wouldn't downsize without taking advice but it won't be from people who've never seen me fly on DZ.com.

P.S. yea it would suck to bounce now at a WL of 1.2 after posting objections, I'd become the posterboy for canopy nannies. The embarrassment alone would kill me.Smile


(This post was edited by dorbie on Jan 18, 2005, 6:24 AM)


Ron

Jan 18, 2005, 6:48 AM
Post #79 of 295 (1417 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DancingFlame] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
At my home DZ every jumper MUST receive an approval from his instructor before downsizing. He cannot just bring the rig and jump it. If he jumps canopy too small for him without permission, he may be grounded for a day/week/month (anyway, he may ground himself for whole life). It seems very strict but it works good.

And thats what we are asking for. We have a basic chart in place (Brians WL to jump chart) created by an expert canopy pilot and canopy designer. And we are saying that is the BASE. If you wish to procede faster than that base then there woudl be a practical test to show you can control the canopy at the top of your section of the chart (I have proposed the PRO test sinc eit is easy to administor, and is already in place...Plus ask anyone that has done it...It proves that you can fly a canopy).

If you can pass the test you can proceded at whatever rate you can handle.

But you would nto be allowed to pick any canopy and jump it just because you think you could handle it.

Having and Instructor sign you off to downsize is perfect....But not likley to happen on a large scale without a BSR.


chrisgr  (C License)

Jan 18, 2005, 7:12 AM
Post #80 of 295 (1410 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Like it or not, you have been ‘taking advice’ from people who have never seen you fly since you started your student training. Consider the current BSR’s. You have probably taken most of these rules and regulations as absolutes that must be followed.

At one time, most of the BSR’s were merely advice (yikes).

Yes, you may be slightly exceeding the proposed w/l chart, but you have also stated that you have practiced many of the skills that would be tested to fly your canopy and / or continue your canopy progression. What is the harm of proving yourself?

There is an important reason why many jumpers continue to challenge themselves on canopy survival skills. Even if we are not planning to downsize, we know that these skills are necessary to continue skydiving and safely fly our canopies.

Your instructors, S&TA, DZO, etc. are still the best resources and they probably are giving you safe advice if they have watched your canopy control and landings. What they do not have, however, is a standard by which to educate and evaluate canopy pilots that is consistently practiced by licensed instructors.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 18, 2005, 9:22 AM
Post #81 of 295 (1406 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cloud9] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

> Do you ground that person until they loose weight, let them jump their
> canopy? More importantly if you let them jump their canopy how do you
> word that in the BSR?

Per the BSR we've been discussing, they would either have to:

1. prove to a canopy coach or an S+TA they can fly the canopy
2. take a canopy control course or
3. get a larger canopy

In practice, once someone has a canopy at a given DZ, no one's going to make them 'give it back' unless something serious happens. If they go to a new DZ they might have trouble - which would be an excellent reason to take a canopy control course so they don't have to deal with the restriction.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 18, 2005, 9:28 AM
Post #82 of 295 (1403 views)
Shortcut
Re: [parachutist] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>teaching them one thing for safety, then making them unlearn that and
>retrain to a new safety path.

We do it all the time. For their first jump, they must pull if they find themselves alone in freefall. After jump 4 or so, that changes. Their scan changes, their TLO's change, their body position changes, and their pull altitude changes all throughout AFF. This is because it's tough to teach leg turns (for example) to someone who has never been in freefall before, so you start slowly.

But I do agree that it is wise to make the switch as early as possible. Start flat turns early in the student program; get them used to turning low and train them how to do it safely. That way there will be less confusion.

>I see very few incident reports of jumpers who were injured because of
>no turn... the vast majority are caused by turns at low altitude that they
>didn't recover from.

Again, prohibiting low turns is like outlawing impacts. I see very few incident report that do not include a hard impact, so if you just outlaw them you're good to go.

The problem is that low turns are done to avoid powerlines, fences, freeways, other jumpers etc which may or may not injure the jumper more than the low turn. It's often better to land straight ahead than to turn low, but telling someone to accept a broken back instead of a fatality is a tough call, when the other option (flat turn resulting in no injury) is an option.


freakbrother  (D License)

Jan 18, 2005, 11:21 AM
Post #83 of 295 (1387 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bob.dino] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think you may have missed one point of the proposed BSR. You can't fly a smaller, faster canopy until you've proven your ability. Once you've demonstrated your ability to the appropriate person, you're cleared to downsize.

So, the only additional hurdle that is being placed in your way is that you need to demonstrate the necessary survival skills before you downsize, rather than when you get into a tight spot under your smaller new canopy.

If you don't demonstrate that ability, you're restricted to the WNE chart.

Well, there seems to be some disagreement about what "NEVER EXCEED" means.

Does NEVER mean never, or does it mean never unless you test out?

That seems to be a source of some confusion.

Clarify that and I thing a lot of the arguments will go away.

For my part, I'd like a complete dissociation from jump numbers, and reliance instead on training and proven ability.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 18, 2005, 11:35 AM
Post #84 of 295 (1380 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakbrother] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>Does NEVER mean never, or does it mean never unless you test out?

The confusion here is that there is no official proposal. The proposal that Derek, Lisa, Scott etc and I sent in to USPA a while back includes a way to 'test out' of any restrictions by demonstrating canopy control to a canopy coach/S+TA.

Here's an example of what such a BSR might look like:

K. Parachute equipment

5a. No skydiver may exceed wing loading limits on their main parachute as given in the following table: [FB]

A license XX to 1
B license YY to 1
C license ZZ to 1
D license WW to 1

5b. Any skydiver can request a canopy evaluation from a canopy coach or an S+TA. The S+TA/CC will ask the jumper to demonstrate some or all of the canopy control skills listed in section XX. The CC/S+TA may then endorse the jumper's logbook to allow him/her to jump at the next highest loading based on their performance. [FB]

5c. Upon successful completion of an approved canopy control course, the skydiver may then jump at any loading he qualifies for as endorsed by the course director.[FB]


dorbie

Jan 18, 2005, 11:49 AM
Post #85 of 295 (1372 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chrisgr] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, on taking the advice that's true, but BSR's represent collective wisdom not individual opinion that makes specific and unknowable 'observations' about my ability.

w.r.t. proving myself and canopy progression you'll see that I've already stated that this is less objectionable if it's applied reasonably. The devil is in the details.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 18, 2005, 1:44 PM
Post #86 of 295 (1343 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
All you have done is complain and tear down any program that would impose some form of control. And if your profile is correct, you are not qualified to speak on the subject.

As I said, you read very selectively, looking for what you want to see. And unless you're going to assert that skydiving is a unique sport, unlike all others, you're quite wrong on my qualifications to discuss.

In reply to:
This says more about you then I ever could.

Real Name: Darwin's Buddy

Hey, you helped select that name. I've decided that in light of recent events, no need for specifics.

I'm pretty much resigned to the idea that this proposal will be rammed through. It will do some good, it will have some negative side effects, and it will affect almost no one here today. It's the kind of legislation a San Francisco Democrat would be proud of.

I just hope you guys work out all the little details sooner than later, given an unwillingness to hear any faults now.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Jan 18, 2005, 2:20 PM
Post #87 of 295 (1331 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

 Well in the absence of anything else, and a recognition that there is a problem, at least its a start.....might not be perfect, and we won't really know how effective it is until its given time to work.....or not.....but there's been a lot of talk about it for a number of years.....at some point in time there has to be some action......

Its a basic benchmark which at least lets everyone know where the starting point is, and eliminates a lot of confusion...which only perpetuates the problem.....

And its not set in stone.....it can be modified or adjusted at a later date if necessary....and most likely will......fresh ideas are not automatically ignored, because things change....

Skydiving has always been like that....

Most new skydiving disciplines have evolved slowly, with quite a bit of trial and error....but eventually things work out OK.....the rules are designed to cater for the largest number of people, and there will always be individuals who don't "fit" the solution.....thats life.....

You new guys will in the future be confronted with new dilemmas that you'll need to solve......and when there is nothing to base a solution on, you'll find it quite a difficult process........

Its a challenge......not an imposition....regard it as such..........


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 18, 2005, 2:42 PM
Post #88 of 295 (1324 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I just hope you guys work out all the little details sooner than later, given an unwillingness to hear any faults now.

Instead of just bitching, why don't you become one of "you guys" and help work out the little details. Come up with something positive that contributes to the goal instead of coming up reasons you think it will fail. Come up with ideas to help it succeed.

And just so you know, I have nothing to do with this proposal.

Sparky


freakbrother  (D License)

Jan 18, 2005, 3:40 PM
Post #89 of 295 (1308 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Does NEVER mean never, or does it mean never unless you test out?

The confusion here is that there is no official proposal. The proposal that Derek, Lisa, Scott etc and I sent in to USPA a while back includes a way to 'test out' of any restrictions by demonstrating canopy control to a canopy coach/S+TA.

Here's an example of what such a BSR might look like:

K. Parachute equipment

5a. No skydiver may exceed wing loading limits on their main parachute as given in the following table: [FB]

A license XX to 1
B license YY to 1
C license ZZ to 1
D license WW to 1

5b. Any skydiver can request a canopy evaluation from a canopy coach or an S+TA. The S+TA/CC will ask the jumper to demonstrate some or all of the canopy control skills listed in section XX. The CC/S+TA may then endorse the jumper's logbook to allow him/her to jump at the next highest loading based on their performance. [FB]

5c. Upon successful completion of an approved canopy control course, the skydiver may then jump at any loading he qualifies for as endorsed by the course director.[FB]

That's cool. Thanks for the clarification, Coulda done with it earlier, I guess.

Nothing like arguing at cross purposes to waste a lot of bandwidth.Smile


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Jan 18, 2005, 5:31 PM
Post #90 of 295 (1281 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

just to play devils advocate here: if the WNE goes into effect, dont you think those low jump people who are hell bound to try swooping will just try it with larger canpies? reading the incident reports it seems that the deaths/injuries associated with low turns are about 60:40 intentional to panic turns. hell, i could probably get a decent swoop from my 190 if i got on the front risers or hooked it (i have no interest at this time so thats not gonna happen). as we have seen from the incident reports from '04, you can spiral in under a 280 and still kill yourself. just a thought.


pash

Jan 18, 2005, 5:42 PM
Post #91 of 295 (1280 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

If I knew I had to have "x" jumps or completed some proficiency to swoop by "testing out", but didn't have that signed off on, I would expect and deserve to be grounded or talked to.


Bartje  (E License)

Jan 18, 2005, 5:52 PM
Post #92 of 295 (1277 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

youare right, after posting this reply I continued reading what wasafter and there you are ok.
My excuses.
I never wish somebody to hurt himself,

Keep o, listen to others, we can not stop learning.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 18, 2005, 6:39 PM
Post #93 of 295 (1265 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Instead of just bitching, why don't you become one of "you guys" and help work out the little details. Come up with something positive that contributes to the goal instead of coming up reasons you think it will fail. Come up with ideas to help it succeed.

And just so you know, I have nothing to do with this proposal.

This is getting pretty circular.

I have, and I did. Perhaps having nothing to do with this proposal is why you don't seem to be getting this, and instead are repeated this same bullshit about me over and over again.

Nor is it defeatist to point out the major issues that will need addressing to make the transition a success, like the limited availability of 230+ rental rigs. Far better to identify these snags now.

Oh, and it's a bit contradictory to post that I'm unqualified to speak on the subject, and then to tell me to be one of "you guys."


pash

Jan 18, 2005, 7:56 PM
Post #94 of 295 (1254 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

You and I are those guys. I'm not "qualified" to speak either. You and I are in the same boat, sort of. Tell me, would you rather have it handed to you by someone outside the community or would you rather recognize that people here 10+ years have seen people more qualified than us die because we didn't stop to think that more experienced people are just that. MORE EXPERIENCED. It doesn't mean giving up personal freedoms, taking a 2nd home equity loan, and being limited to finding a DZ 500 miles away that happens to have a 500 sq ft. canopy.

They have suggested COUNTLESS times the ability to "test out." This would mean that you YES YOU, may be able to go up to your instructor, and ask to jump your CURRENT canopy (rental or otherwise) and PROVE you can land the thing in several ways. Wouldn't you feel more ACCOMPLISHED if you DEMONSTRATED your ability in the eyes of the MORE EXPERIENCED? Or do you think that they want no one to follow them and would prefer an extinct sport? They want us here and they want us to be here longer than our last bonehead decision would otherwise let us. You are not a bonehead by the way. But you must prove yourself to be outside of the bell-curve of the ones that got us to this debate in the first place.

How about one or two more jumps on that 7,000 sq ft canopy first just to prove it. Get signed off on then you're off and running in NO TIME!! They may let us downsize to 5,000 sq ft in no time! Tongue

PS - I'm sure no one here, including me, meant a lack of tact here in this thread. I think that includes you. I have to exercise tact day-in and day-out but this is not a sport in which I desire tact from the leadership. Give it to me straight. It's like being a recruit in WWII: Please help keep me alive with what you know. I'll do everything I can do to repay the favor.

--edited to add that PS


(This post was edited by pash on Jan 18, 2005, 8:11 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 18, 2005, 7:58 PM
Post #95 of 295 (1254 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Instead of just bitching, why don't you become one of "you guys" and help work out the little details. Come up with something positive that contributes to the goal instead of coming up reasons you think it will fail. Come up with ideas to help it succeed.

And just so you know, I have nothing to do with this proposal.

This is getting pretty circular.

I have, and I did. Perhaps having nothing to do with this proposal is why you don't seem to be getting this, and instead are repeated this same bullshit about me over and over again.

Nor is it defeatist to point out the major issues that will need addressing to make the transition a success, like the limited availability of 230+ rental rigs. Far better to identify these snags now.

Oh, and it's a bit contradictory to post that I'm unqualified to speak on the subject, and then to tell me to be one of "you guys."


"Bingo" No mor calls please. We have a winner. Someone who has all the answers.

Good luck in the future, you will need it.

Done


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 18, 2005, 8:42 PM
Post #96 of 295 (1244 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>dont you think those low jump people who are hell bound to try
>swooping will just try it with larger canpies?

Probably. But if you do exactly the same stupid thing under a Spectre 170 as under a Xaos 108, you are more likely to survive under the Spectre. More likely people will bitch about it and try to demonstrate they can fly their Spectre 170 so they can downsize. When they realize they can't flat turn - well, at least they learned something about their abilities.

>as we have seen from the incident reports from '04, you can spiral
>in under a 280 and still kill yourself.

And skydivers can kill themselves by not responding to a mal even if they pull at 3000 feet. Doesn't mean the 2000 foot limit is meaningless as a result.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 18, 2005, 8:45 PM
Post #97 of 295 (1242 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>Nor is it defeatist to point out the major issues that will need
> addressing to make the transition a success, like the limited
> availability of 230+ rental rigs. Far better to identify these snags now.

All the San Diego rental rigs (except one) are 230+ square feet. Almost every DZ in the country uses 230+ sq ft student canopies. Getting the gear will not be a problem.


Shark  (D 24499)

Jan 18, 2005, 11:28 PM
Post #98 of 295 (1230 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
And as we were talking about the bigger guys...I run 210-220 over this past year. Translating to an exit weight of 245-255, right at the normal max of 254. The ideal size for me has been a ZP 230, at sea level. 210 is right over the edge of ok for me - I'd want to be at 205lbs or better.

I've had some trouble visiting DZs and renting:
Elsinore - Spectre 210 is biggest for gear shop, plus altitude concerns there. I found the envelope that weekend.

Quote:
So if we mandate a 1.0 limit, either the rental options need to improve, or 6'ers are going to have to make compromises on time or gear or spend more money on a 260 that they use for a limited time.

You quote our gear shop at Elsinore. I know for a fact that they will refer you to the school if you require a larger canopy. Several licensed jumpers still rent the Nav 240s and 260s.

Wingloading is just part of the equation; a large part. What about a 110 lb. chick loaded at 1.4? She's just above the jump number range for it, why cant she jump the Velocity 87?


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 18, 2005, 11:36 PM
Post #99 of 295 (1229 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You and I are those guys. I'm not "qualified" to speak either. You and I are in the same boat, sort of. Tell me, would you rather have it handed to you by someone outside the community or would you rather recognize that people here 10+ years have seen people more qualified than us die because we didn't stop to think that more experienced people are just that. MORE EXPERIENCED. It doesn't mean giving up personal freedoms, taking a 2nd home equity loan, and being limited to finding a DZ 500 miles away that happens to have a 500 sq ft. canopy.

They have suggested COUNTLESS times the ability to "test out." This would mean that you YES YOU, may be able to go up to your instructor, and ask to jump your CURRENT canopy (rental or otherwise) and PROVE you can land the thing in several ways. Wouldn't you feel more ACCOMPLISHED if you DEMONSTRATED your ability in the eyes of the MORE EXPERIENCED? Or do you think that they want no one to follow them and would prefer an extinct sport? They want us here and they want us to be here longer than our last bonehead decision would otherwise let us. You are not a bonehead by the way. But you must prove yourself to be outside of the bell-curve of the ones that got us to this debate in the first place.

How about one or two more jumps on that 7,000 sq ft canopy first just to prove it. Get signed off on then you're off and running in NO TIME!! They may let us downsize to 5,000 sq ft in no time! Tongue

PS - I'm sure no one here, including me, meant a lack of tact here in this thread. I think that includes you. I have to exercise tact day-in and day-out but this is not a sport in which I desire tact from the leadership. Give it to me straight. It's like being a recruit in WWII: Please help keep me alive with what you know. I'll do everything I can do to repay the favor.

--edited to add that PS

OH, No, not another one of those new jumpers that wants to use common sense and get training and take advise and all that restrictive shit. They are a dying breed I heard. Opps, thats right, its the ones that don't think they need training and won't take advise that are a dying breed. My mistake.Wink

Seriously, with an attitude like yours, you have a good chance of surviving in this sport. The people working to put this program together do not want to hold new jumper down, they want to help them survive long enough to enjoy what skydiving has to offer.

Sparky


mnealtx  (B 30496)

Jan 19, 2005, 12:37 AM
Post #100 of 295 (1221 views)
Shortcut
BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe it's just because I'm a "new jumper", but I can't understand all the resistance to something that can be easily tested out of (for people that are "grandfathered in") AND WILL MAKE PEOPLE SAFER CANOPY PILOTS AND SAVE LIVES.

WTF is up with this? If you're currently jumping a rig that's over your W/L, you can talk to the DZO/S&TA/CC and test out with your current rig, rent a student rig or demo a canopy and test out of it!!!!

WHY all the resistance and doomsaying over this???? Am I just ignorant, or is there an honest reason other than "I can't be bothered to do that and I'm perfectly safe under my current canopy"?

In case you couldn't tell, I'm all for it - I'm already planning to take a canopy control course as soon as I can after finishing my "A", and will probably get instruction from Skydive U, as well. It will make me better at flying my body and my canopy, which will make me safer to myself and those around me. How can that NOT be a good thing?


(This post was edited by mnealtx on Jan 19, 2005, 12:39 AM)


stratostar  (Student)

Jan 19, 2005, 4:09 AM
Post #101 of 295 (963 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

First of all this post IS NOT A BASH!
But if your numbers are correct in 9 years you have done 5.4
jumps a year, that would mean you have NEVER maintained your currency durring that time and there for that makes you a danger to yourself and a hazzard to others, you are just current enough to become another number!
There for you got a long way to go before you even would need to worrie about a WL BSR and how it would "take away from you". When someone like you shows up to jump I refresh or retrain them and watch them like a hawk and put them out on a bigass canopy 288 or better unless your were a 97lbs girl then maybe a 220 or 190,MAYBE. Go get current and stay current that might lower your risk, some.

~


(This post was edited by stratostar on Jan 19, 2005, 5:44 AM)


cbain  (D 25839)

Jan 19, 2005, 5:11 AM
Post #102 of 295 (955 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Does NEVER mean never, or does it mean never unless you test out?

The confusion here is that there is no official proposal. The proposal that Derek, Lisa, Scott etc and I sent in to USPA a while back includes a way to 'test out' of any restrictions by demonstrating canopy control to a canopy coach/S+TA.

Here's an example of what such a BSR might look like:

K. Parachute equipment

5a. No skydiver may exceed wing loading limits on their main parachute as given in the following table: [FB]

A license XX to 1
B license YY to 1
C license ZZ to 1
D license WW to 1

5b. Any skydiver can request a canopy evaluation from a canopy coach or an S+TA. The S+TA/CC will ask the jumper to demonstrate some or all of the canopy control skills listed in section XX. The CC/S+TA may then endorse the jumper's logbook to allow him/her to jump at the next highest loading based on their performance. [FB]

5c. Upon successful completion of an approved canopy control course, the skydiver may then jump at any loading he qualifies for as endorsed by the course director.[FB]

I have a serious question about a concern I've thought of reading over all these wonderful posts.

For example, a person is over the WL BSR and they take a course or a test and the S&TA or the canopy coach approve them to jump at a higher WL than the recommendation. Then the next week they decide to pull a 270 and swoop the pond because now they've "proven" themselves. They screw up and die. How do you keep the S&TA or CC from being blamed, sued, punished, etc because they said it was "ok"?

I am concerned that the testing out option or the course option would never be effective because the S&TA's, DZO's and the CC's would be afraid of the possible repurcussians to themselves if they approve some one to jump over the recommendations. So even though it would be in the rules that you could test it would never actually happen.

And how are the S&TA's, DZO's and CC's going to be trained to know when a person really is ready (or not) to go to a higher WL? Will there be some sort of certification process and rating, or will it have to be mandated by the FAA like riggers are due to the extra liability these folks would be taking on? And who will pay for their training to make these judgement calls?

I'm not against a WL BSR, actually I really hope it helps. But like some other people have pointed out, there are going to be side effects and issues that can't even be forseen yet and I don't think all the forseeable ones have even been dealt with yet. Implenting new policy in any area (not just skydiving) is a very bumpy process with a lot of pitfalls.

It's also going to cost a lot of money to implement and that will get passed on to us and not just those that want to test out. Everybody already complains about USPA dues what if dues double to cover the cost of implementing this policy?

I'd like to see the USPA take this seriously and tell us how much is it going to cost to implement and what the legal ramifications would be. Maybe start it at just a couple of DZ's first, like pilot program, and see what happens there before widespread implementation.

Christina


D22369  (D 22369)

Jan 19, 2005, 5:44 AM
Post #103 of 295 (947 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

just to play devils advocate here: if the WNE goes into effect, dont you think those low jump people who are hell bound to try swooping will just try it with larger canopies?
Quote:

Yes they will, but their odds of surviving are higher with a larger, more doscile wing over them, but then when they try high performance landings its the S&TA's job to tell them to knock their shit off..........

nine years ago If I had tried my emergency turn with anything smaller than my interceptor 220 over my head I would have died on the scene rather than break the tib/fib.

I got lucky....

Roy


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 19, 2005, 7:59 AM
Post #104 of 295 (926 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cbain] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

To your first concern, instructors sign you off student status and approve you lic. requirements in effect saying you are safe in freefall.

To you second concern, yes the people who would make the call on "testing out" would be trained on how to make the call. What this program is trying to prevent is getting the FAA involved. Who pays for an instructors training now? Who paid for your coach rating?

Sparky


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 19, 2005, 8:02 AM
Post #105 of 295 (924 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cbain] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
How do you keep the S&TA or CC from being blamed, sued, punished, etc because they said it was "ok"?

Same thing applys to signing off an "A" license or PRO rating. What if on their first demo after you signed them off they hit a spectator? Are you liable?
No, all you did was sign off that they met the requirements. They can still sue though.

Derek


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 19, 2005, 8:58 AM
Post #106 of 295 (908 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cbain] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>How do you keep the S&TA or CC from being blamed, sued, punished,
>etc because they said it was "ok"?

Same way you keep them from getting sued now when they "allow" people to jump 99 square foot canopies at 200 jumps. Same way you keep an instructor from getting sued when they graduate a student from AFF and he dies shortly afterwards. Same way you keep a USPA coach from getting sued when they set up a 4-way and the guy collides with someone else after deployment.

The best way to prevent lawsuits is reduce injuries and deaths. The BSR is one way to do that. Saying "we shouldn't do anything new to prevent deaths so no one can be blamed" will lead to more, not fewer, lawsuits.

>And how are the S&TA's, DZO's and CC's going to be trained to know
> when a person really is ready (or not) to go to a higher WL?

Same way I can tell when someone is ready for a release dive, to graduate from AFF, or is ready for a 4-way - experience with teaching and organizing. It will be a different sort of teaching, but one that can be learned.

Every once in a while I go out to the landing area with a camera and video people landing. Even without them doing any tasks, just landing straight in, it's pretty easy to see who's ready for a smaller canopy and who isn't. Now we just have to get the standards that some of us can see down on paper.

> Will there
> be some sort of certification process and rating . . .

I think it will be very similar to the coach rating, since it will involve more classroom than practical work.

>And who will pay for their training to make these judgement calls?

They will, just as people pay for the coach rating now.

> But like some other people have pointed out, there are going to be
> side effects and issues that can't even be forseen yet and I don't think
>all the forseeable ones have even been dealt with yet. Implenting
>new policy in any area (not just skydiving) is a very bumpy process with
> a lot of pitfalls.

I agree. A long time ago (well, six years) many of us were pushing for a 'graduate course' from USPA, a standardized course that took people from new grad to experienced jumper safely. We ended up with the ISP. The ISP has had, so far, a moderate effect, because many people don't implement it. It is, however, gradually gaining acceptance, driven partly by the task list on the A license card and partly by people becoming familiar with it.

I have a feeling that any canopy course will be similar. At first no one will heed it. Then a few drop zones will, and a few gear dealers will. Then a big gear dealer will start asking to see the canopy-control course endorsement before selling you a small canopy. Then a boogie will announce that you need the endorsement (or the license) to demo any canopies at their boogie. It will be enacted gradually, as many of these things are. The USPA standards will be seen first as an optional guide; they will only gradually take on the force of custom.

So while we may not get it 100% right the first time, as it is gradually impemented, we will have the opportunity to tweak it. It would be a mistake, I think, to wait until it's perfect before implementing it - it never will be. Nothing in skydiving is.

>It's also going to cost a lot of money to implement and that will get
>passed on to us and not just those that want to test out. Everybody
>already complains about USPA dues what if dues double to cover the
>cost of implementing this policy?

Why would there be any dues increase? You'd have to print another three or four pages for the SIM. That's like $0.10, and they don't send the SIM to everyone. You'd have to pay for the canopy control courses. Coaches would do that. You'd have to pay for an eval from a CC, and you'd have to pay for a CC course. The participants would do that. If you never want to do any of that, and just stick to your Spectre 210 forever, you will see no additional costs.

Do you see a hidden cost somewhere else?

>Maybe start it at just a couple of DZ's first, like pilot program, and
>see what happens there before widespread implementation.

That will happen anyway.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jan 19, 2005, 9:31 AM
Post #107 of 295 (898 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

 
I'm a big fan of the WL NE chart, as well as the need for increased education. I've always thought that the education was the more important of the two (although having both is the ideal situation).

The reason I've publicly supported the WL NE chart, is becasue of the simplicity in implementing it. Write it down, fax to every DZ you can think of, and say, 'This is what you should be doing, everyone else is going to do this'. And yes, everyoen can keep jumping what they have, but when they want to donwsize, their WL must fall into the given chart values. An addition I would make to the Brian Germains chart would be no HP canopies under 500 jumps (Stiletto, Crossfire, etc) and no X-brace under 800 jumps.

Now we have the whiners who think they are special and better than everyone else, and they want to test out of the restrictions. The ideas you have to cater to this are actaully prerry good, and once the bugs are worked out, they seem like they will work well.

That, however is the catch. 'Once they are wroked out'. When is that going to be? Even if we could get the USPA to focus on this it would be at least another year before there were functioning CC coaches at some DZ's (not all). The addition of the 'tst out' clause to the WL chart takes away it's ease (and speed) of implementation.

What about getting the WL chart out there, as it sits, without the 'test out' clause and start to get a handle on the situation? We can add the ability to test out at a later date. When the educational cirriculum,testing criteria,as well as the coach certification criteria are established, then we cann add the ability to test out.


Bartje  (E License)

Jan 19, 2005, 9:46 AM
Post #108 of 295 (893 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
An addition I would make to the Brian Germains chart would be no HP canopies under 500 jumps (Stiletto, Crossfire, etc) and no X-brace under 800 jumps.
Why would you do that, making a differance in braced and non braced hp canopies.
A Crossfire2 is for example not that much slower or less performant than a cross braced canopy.
Keep the guidelines (or rules) simple as possible,


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jan 19, 2005, 9:54 AM
Post #109 of 295 (884 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bartje] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
A Crossfire2 is for example not that much slower or less performant than a cross braced canopy.

The Crossfire is HP, but it's no X-Brace. A Crossfire at 1.5 is even further from an X-Braced canopy.

I agree, a Crossfore at 2.0 is zippy, and needs a skilled pilot, but within the confines of the WL chart, 500 jumps seems reasonable for a Crossfire at that loading.


Bartje  (E License)

Jan 19, 2005, 10:04 AM
Post #110 of 295 (879 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

So you will suggest a wl chart and a canopy chart parralel. Do I see that correct?
Not a bad idea but a bit confusing I think.


chrisgr  (C License)

Jan 19, 2005, 10:51 AM
Post #111 of 295 (859 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Forgive the cross-post, but tdog has an interesting suggestion regarding canopy type classes / ratings here ...

http://www.dropzone.com/...post=1441148#1441148


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 19, 2005, 11:00 AM
Post #112 of 295 (853 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>An addition I would make to the Brian Germains chart would be no HP
> canopies under 500 jumps (Stiletto, Crossfire, etc) and no X-brace under
> 800 jumps.

Why? Do you think that a cross-braced canopy loaded at 1:1 is any more or less dangerous than the same canopy without cross-bracing? Cross-bracing is just a technology to allow heavier loadings without distortion of the airfoil; it does not make the canopy "go faster" or anything.

Also, keep in mind that the point of this is not to say "if you have under 200 jumps you are perfectly safe jumping a 1.2 loaded square canopy but totally unsafe jumping a 1.2 loaded elliptical canopy." The point is to help keep people off heavily loaded canopies until they get the training or experience to handle them. There's no way you could ever come up with a chart of canopy size vs type vs experience to keep people perfectly safe. It's the training that the BSR requires, rather than the restrictions, that will make people safer canopy pilots. The restrictions are just a way to encourage them to get it and keep them alive until they _do_ get it.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jan 19, 2005, 12:25 PM
Post #113 of 295 (836 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Look, a company makes a HP canopy, thats what it's built for, HP flight. There's no reason that a jumper needs an HP wing under 500 jumps, at any loading.

X-braced canopies are sold in smaller sizes. Smaller sizes which would require a numerically lower WL as per the charts guidelines. Combine these two factors, and most jumpers won't even qualify to jump an X-Braced wing much under 800 jumps. Not to mention the point from the first paragraph, x-braced canopies are designed for HP flight, and who needs that at lower jump numbers?

Again, I agree that the training will have the greater influence over the course of events, but considering the glacial pace of developing that system, the WL chart is a good band-aid for the time being. I'm in no way suggesting that it's a stand-alone solution, or that it wil ease the need to ASAP the training program, but it's something we could do for now. In comparison to the NOTHING that has been done to address this matter, at this point anything would be an advatage.


freakbrother  (D License)

Jan 19, 2005, 1:45 PM
Post #114 of 295 (818 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mnealtx] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Maybe it's just because I'm a "new jumper", but I can't understand all the resistance to something that can be easily tested out of (for people that are "grandfathered in") AND WILL MAKE PEOPLE SAFER CANOPY PILOTS AND SAVE LIVES.

WTF is up with this? If you're currently jumping a rig that's over your W/L, you can talk to the DZO/S&TA/CC and test out with your current rig, rent a student rig or demo a canopy and test out of it!!!!

WHY all the resistance and doomsaying over this???? Am I just ignorant, or is there an honest reason other than "I can't be bothered to do that and I'm perfectly safe under my current canopy"?

In case you couldn't tell, I'm all for it - I'm already planning to take a canopy control course as soon as I can after finishing my "A", and will probably get instruction from Skydive U, as well. It will make me better at flying my body and my canopy, which will make me safer to myself and those around me. How can that NOT be a good thing?

Well, here's the issue as I see it:

1. What exactly is the proposal that is being discussed? Brian's WNE chart ("NEVER EXCEED") or BillnDereknLisa....'s draft BSR which is significantly different?

2. If the issue is to force more canopy training, how does that affect someone with N+ jumps (where N is the top of the WNE chart) who decides to downsize with no additional training? Experienced jumpers are killing themselves in just as great numbers as inexperienced ones.

3. Some have argued that the data available shows gender and age to be more reliable indicators than jump numbers or WL of the likelihood of a landing accident. MAYBE this proposal is addressing the lesser problem. Don't you think we should try to find out for sure?


Hence discussion is a good thing and will help to get the best outcome. I think those trying to shut down discussion are doing us a disservice.

I have to commend Bill and others for being willing to listen and to modify their proposal from its original form in the light of comments received.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 19, 2005, 3:13 PM
Post #115 of 295 (800 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cbain] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I have a serious question about a concern I've thought of reading over all these wonderful posts.

For example, a person is over the WL BSR and they take a course or a test and the S&TA or the canopy coach approve them to jump at a higher WL than the recommendation. Then the next week they decide to pull a 270 and swoop the pond because now they've "proven" themselves. They screw up and die. How do you keep the S&TA or CC from being blamed, sued, punished, etc because they said it was "ok"?

I thought about this as well. On a legal basis, whenever you start to advise or moderate, you take on more responsibility. That why most online forums don't really moderate at all, because then they may be held responsible for allowing libelous postings. By taking no role at all (as is more or less how it works now for wingloading), they are not legally involved.

So on that vein, the DZ is just as responsible when they say that person is ok at 1.x as specified by the BSR. Or over the BSR, but grandfathered.

It certainly wouldn't be a righteous lawsuit. I suspect the waiver will cover these adequetely, but it will be just another checkbox marked off on the suit, along with the gear maker, the instructor, etc.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 19, 2005, 3:17 PM
Post #116 of 295 (798 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
First of all this post IS NOT A BASH!
But if your numbers are correct in 9 years you have done 5.4
jumps a year,

It would, using simple math, but that would be false.
41 jumps in 2004. 6 in 2003.

The winter has me less current than I'd like, and I've been waiting forever for Aerodyn to crank out some more Smarts. Having spent $4000 on a rig I can't yet jump, I've been reluctant to pay for too many rentals right now. This is where the costs enter the equation for me.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 19, 2005, 3:31 PM
Post #117 of 295 (796 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Shark] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You quote our gear shop at Elsinore. I know for a fact that they will refer you to the school if you require a larger canopy. Several licensed jumpers still rent the Nav 240s and 260s.

Yes, we talked for a bit about it, and I opted to go with the Spectre, did the first jump to see how it would be, and it seemed ok. Second jump told me that I shouldn't buy this canopy unless I'm lighter. The collapsible PC seemed to be a significant factor in the speed - both the spectre 210 and 230 felt much faster than the Tri 220 and Fusion 230 I've used that do not have it. Should it be part of this chart, or is it useless complexity given most are sold with a kill line?

Student chutes of adequete size will always be present; the catch is that it's a) a student chute, sometimes a well worn out one, on a very uncomfortable rig and b) reserved for student use as a priority. At a midsized DZ like Skydance, I had trouble at times getting at one in the period between AFF and being able to use Action Airs 230s. Fewer jumps on worse canopies slows the learning process, or pushes the person more quickly to buying.

The Tri and the Sabre2 are available up to 260, but the Pilot only comes in a 210. If this change comes in, I hope it will work out that there is enough demand to justify larger sizes, and the gear stores stocking more of them.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 19, 2005, 3:44 PM
Post #118 of 295 (792 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Wouldn't you feel more ACCOMPLISHED if you DEMONSTRATED your ability in the eyes of the MORE EXPERIENCED? Or do you think that they want no one to follow them and would prefer an extinct sport?

Pash - as you probably read, I don't object to the test out. I just think it should apply to everyone. And it's not clear what standard would be used - a few have been proposed, and now even a suggestion that we not have a test out until sometime TBD.

The sport will not go extinct, with or without these changes. And given history, it's unlikely the death count will change, but it will likely dramatically reduce the incident scenario of a low timer dying on a hot chute. Yet IMO, it's the canopy training and standards requirements that are coupled to this discussion that will do the most good. Personally I'd like that as the priority, but it's a much harder one to do.


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Jan 19, 2005, 5:42 PM
Post #119 of 295 (774 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakbrother] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
3. Some have argued that the data available shows gender and age to be more reliable indicators than jump numbers or WL of the likelihood of a landing accident. MAYBE this proposal is addressing the lesser problem. Don't you think we should try to find out for sure?

i think this is an excellent point. i am a 34 year old male. i have very little interest in swooping for the simple fact that i cannot afford to break myself. i have a very strong suspicion that if i tried swooping it would only be a matter of time until that happened. i am perfectly happy under my 190 w/l at 1.2 - and i questioned hard about that. i bought it because EVERYONE i jump with (and the DZO) told me to go with the 190 at the slightly higher w/l than the 210 i was looking at. and my landings on the 190 are awesome compared to the student 210 i was jumping.
on the other hand, almost all of the younger (18 to 28) guys i jump with are chomping at the bit for sub-100 foot canopies. almost all of them are really into HP landings. i have already seen one biff in, and that was one too many. watching someone bounce and end up 70 feet from where they first hit is not fun (thank God he wasnt seriously injured - how i have no idea).
anyway, the point is maybe several factors should be looked at instead of *just* wingloading. i do not see tons of difference between my 190 and the 210 i was on other than the flare, a little more speed (maybe up to 17 MPH from about 10 MPH on the 210), and that it will give me a bit of a groundsurf on a straight in landing if i hit the flare just right.

edit to add - i am confident in my flat - and flare turn abilities as i practice them from about 5K to about 2K. i have turned approx. 90 degrees as low as 100 feet for obstacle avoidance. never had to flare turn low. i have also landed it cross - and downwind. good PLFs have saved my ass several times. i do NOT want to try landing on rears yet, my comfort level just isnt there. and no front riser dives.


(This post was edited by crotalus01 on Jan 19, 2005, 5:48 PM)


CanuckInUSA  (D 26396)

Jan 19, 2005, 8:45 PM
Post #120 of 295 (755 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
i am a 34 year old male. i have very little interest in swooping for the simple fact that i cannot afford to break myself.

I started skydiving at the age of 38 (I'm now 41) and at that time when I first got into the sport, I said that I wasn't interested in swooping as well. It looked dangerous and I wasn't interested in busting myself up. But look at me now. Swooping is one of my passions. Will I ever be the best? I think it's obvious that the answer is no. Will I bounce? I hope not, but it's also not safe. Are the risks worth the rewards? In many cases, the answer is yes. But in others, it's no. We evolve as jumpers as we gain experience and as time passes. So just because you say you're not interested in doing something today doesn't mean you might not change your mind in the future.

It's not always the young men who are asking for it when it comes to swooping and flying small canopies fast. Every jumper has the potential to kill themselves up there. What it boils down to is the choices that we make. Are they educated choices? How about choices based on experience and choices based on individual risk tolerance comfort levels? Are we making smart choices? Are we flying the right canopy for our experience levels? For the environments we jump in and for our current skill levels? Do we know how to find the performance characteristic of each canopy that we fly and are we patient with our canopies jumping them hundreds and hundreds of times each before moving on to the next canopy? Or do we just want to go big and go big early on in our careers?

It's all about choices. Have you made good choices for yourself?


(This post was edited by CanuckInUSA on Jan 19, 2005, 8:55 PM)


RippedCord  (B 26693)

Jan 19, 2005, 10:31 PM
Post #121 of 295 (743 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hey Keith,

...What do you feel would be a workable program?

Sparky

I don't think there is one. As much as I hate to see people hurt or lose their lives, I find myself coming down against unnecessarily making rules to protect people from themselves.

However, I come from this background: I didn't start skydiving until the last year of my thirties and I knew I wasn't indestructible. I felt that I had a good safety awareness instilled by Jim Wallace's school. Also, I was doing my AFF levels 3 & 4 and very close to the landing strip on July 19, 2003 when I saw the downplane & low hookturn that had Eric Denney on life support for so long and that had a really big impact on me.

JP's comment that people didn't always pull above 2000' until a BSR was created gave me quite some pause for thought, but the difference here is that the deployment altitude isn't something that people are looking to "test out of."

This isn't going to affect me either, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents about creating rules that (I feel) lessen an individual's responsibility to himself.


(This post was edited by RippedCord on Jan 19, 2005, 10:46 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 20, 2005, 12:51 AM
Post #122 of 295 (728 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RippedCord] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
against unnecessarily making rules to protect people from themselves

It not just to protect people from themselves, its to protect the sport as a whole from the results of poor choices made by the individual. Fatalities draw the attention of the media, weather from a low pull or a low turn. At least with a low pull the story will say he didn't open his parachute in time, shame on him. In a low turn fatality the story could say he was under a good parachute and still died. If we can develop a program that will prevent this from happening, at least with less frequency, we could not only save a few from themselves, but draw less attention to the "dark side" of skydiving.
Just something to think about.

Sparky


Bartje  (E License)

Jan 20, 2005, 1:59 AM
Post #123 of 295 (724 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

I get the impression that we are Don Quichotte, we are fighting against the skydivers mentality,
each program can help but will not be the sollution for 100%,
the solution is that we have to change the general skydivers mentality and you have to start this with jump one, not with the first jump on a hp canopy, not with the first swoop, we, as instructors has the responsibility each time that we send someone up.
If you are afraid for a lawsuit than I start thinking that you are not 100% sure off your decision.
I realize hat there will always be a risk but hé, we are doing a extreme sport and that is the first thing what I say when I have a group newbies.
Each time when people ask me info and the question is there I will say it. Everybody in my course did hear it minimum once.
Each briefing, course or anybody who ask tips and tricks will hear it: Skydiving is a extreme sport and safety is for 99% between the ears.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 20, 2005, 4:44 AM
Post #124 of 295 (706 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bartje] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If you are afraid for a lawsuit than I start thinking that you are not 100% sure off your decision.

I didn't mention anything about a lawsuit, much less being afraid of one.

And I agree, it has to do with mentality, not the "general" mentality, but the "me, me, me" mentality.
Like one person posted, new jumper have a right to have fun. True, but their right to this fun ends when it ruins my day.

Sparky


Bartje  (E License)

Jan 20, 2005, 5:14 AM
Post #125 of 295 (700 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If you are afraid for a lawsuit than I start thinking that you are not 100% sure off your decision.
it has to be: If someone is afraid for a lawsuit than I start thinking that they are not 100% sure off an decision.
my miswriting.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jan 20, 2005, 6:45 AM
Post #126 of 295 (1073 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The sport will not go extinct, with or without these changes. And given history, it's unlikely the death count will change,

The death count has changed. Dramatically. Thats why were havig this discussion. Ten years ago, open canopy incidents were no more prevalent than other incidents. Were you unaware of this, or do you have reason to believe that the trend has stabilized, and will not get any worse? If the latter is the case, do you believe that the number of open canopy incidents is acceptable?

Quote:
the canopy training and standards requirements that are coupled to this discussion that will do the most good. Personally I'd like that as the priority, but it's a much harder one to do.

This is a point I have echoed on many occasions. What do you propose we do in the meantime? The USPA has been 'working' on this problem for years, with no tangible results thus far.

Looking at the small picture, there were two serious incidents in the last couple weeks involving low time jumpers making low turns, with predictable resutls. Both jumpers were on eliptical canpies at a WL FAR excceding the values of the WL NE chart. There is nothing to say that if the chart were in place these incidents wouldn't have happened, but I'm willing to bet that if it was:

1. Their WL would have been much lower. Maybe not to the number of the chart, but having a chart in place would have shown the extreme negligence in allowing these jumpers to jump the canopies they were.

2. If their Wl and canopy choice was closer to the WL chart, and they had perfprmed the same manuver, these incidents would not have occured. A more appropriate canopy would have recovered from the input in sufficient time and altitude to allow for an un-eventful landing.

OR

3. If the jumpers had changed their approach to try and swoop the larger canopy, at a minimum the impact would have been lessened.

In my opinion, 1, 2, and/or 3, anre better alternatives to the reality of what did happen.


DontPanic  (D 30449)

Jan 20, 2005, 7:19 AM
Post #127 of 295 (1066 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In some posts, the way this W/L BSR is presented doesn't seem to bad. In other posts, it begins to sound like the W/L BSR would impose alot of confusing bureaucracy.

I am still using the rental equipment at my DZ, and I have always talked with the coaches whenever I have downsized to a different canopy. It would not have been a burden to obtain a sign-off from the S&TA or the Canopy Coach before jumping a certain canopy, since I was already checking with them before jumping a new canopy. Also, it would have been OK with me to have acquired some sign-offs on some canopy skills before progressing past the 1/1 ratio.

But when I look at my current situation, I get confused when I measure my situation up against some of the things I'm seeing in posts in this thread. My current exit weight is about 210-215 lbs. I lost 10 lbs to get there, but who knows, I may gain that 10 lbs back someday. Based on the BSR proposals I have seen, I can jump our 215 Falcon without bumping into the W/L BSR (I would still have to get the approval of the DZ coaches before progressing).

Our next size down is a 190 Sabre, which would be at about 1.12/1 for me. Some of the posts here seem to indicate I would need to jump a rig in the 1 - 1.1 range before going to 1.12/1, but we don't have a rig in that range. Then, just to confuse things even more I have to worry about gaining or losing 5 or 10 lbs.

To me, it would simplify things to say you have to get signed off for a canopy size that exceeds the W/L BSR (instead of saying you have to get signed off to advance to the next segment of the W/L BSR). Once you get signed off for that canopy size, as long as you stay current (which assumes you would be jumping that canopy through minor weight changes, and staying accustomed to it's behaviour as your weight changes gradually), you are still cleared for that canopy size.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 20, 2005, 7:39 AM
Post #128 of 295 (1061 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DontPanic] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
To me, it would simplify things to say you have to get signed off for a canopy size that exceeds the W/L BSR (instead of saying you have to get signed off to advance to the next segment of the W/L BSR).

That is what our proposal says.....

It combines CC training at each license level with an increase in the WL the person can jump. If you gain weight, can't find a canopy in the range you need, whztever and next size down works but is above you max WL, then just demonstrate the ability to handle the higher WL and you get signed off.

Again, the proposal is not meant to hold anyone back that doesn't need to be held back. If someone with 50 jumps want to jump a Stiletto 89 at 1.6:1, they either won't be allowed to, or if they can demonstrate they are an exception to the rule, then they will be allowed to.

No BSR is perfect. Should every D license holder pull at 2,000 feet on every jump? No sometimes 2,000 feet is unsafe. Can someone get away with pulling below 2,000 feet? Yes, but the risk factor starts to really go up. The min pull altitude BSR was set at 2,000 partially because it is an easy number. Why not 1,900 feet or 2,100 feet? The BSR needs to be as simple as possible to be accepted. Does the BSR stop everyone from deploying under 2,00ft? No. But it does make a positive difference and give DZ's and easy BSR to enforce. You could make ahugely complicated WL SR that accounted for every little detail, but it would be so complicated it would be impractical.

Derek


(This post was edited by Hooknswoop on Jan 20, 2005, 7:44 AM)


Ron

Jan 20, 2005, 7:45 AM
Post #129 of 295 (1057 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DontPanic] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
But when I look at my current situation, I get confused when I measure my situation up against some of the things I'm seeing in posts in this thread. My current exit weight is about 210-215 lbs. I lost 10 lbs to get there, but who knows, I may gain that 10 lbs back someday. Based on the BSR proposals I have seen, I can jump our 215 Falcon without bumping into the W/L BSR (I would still have to get the approval of the DZ coaches before progressing).


Your Falcon 215 you would be 1.06 round up 1.1
The 190 you would be 1.21 round down 1.2.

1.1 to 1.2 is not a big jump. And if you got the approval of the S&TA then there would be no problem.

In reply to:
To me, it would simplify things to say you have to get signed off for a canopy size that exceeds the W/L BSR (instead of saying you have to get signed off to advance to the next segment of the W/L BSR). Once you get signed off for that canopy size, as long as you stay current (which assumes you would be jumping that canopy through minor weight changes, and staying accustomed to it's behaviour as your weight changes gradually), you are still cleared for that canopy size.

Practical application this would happen.

You would not be allowed to go from a 1.1 to a 1.5 without proving you could handle it. And that is the major issue, not 1.12 to 1.16


RippedCord  (B 26693)

Jan 20, 2005, 7:57 AM
Post #130 of 295 (1049 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It not just to protect people from themselves, its to protect the sport as a whole ...

This is an argument I fully support and can side with. Now we are making rules to protect ourselves from the actions of others.

Now, assuming that we pass such rule/requirement, who gets charged with the responsibility of enforcing it, and HOW do they go about enforcing it?


(This post was edited by RippedCord on Jan 20, 2005, 8:01 AM)


Designer  (D 5771)

Jan 20, 2005, 8:27 AM
Post #131 of 295 (1036 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Humm,interesting idea!To attempt this could be trouble.They will just go somewhere else to be stupid!All dropzones would have to agree to test there own solutions.Maybe at the next DZ conference?A BSR IS JUST 1 POSSIBLE SOLUTION.What else could we try?Let's put our thinking caps on folks.(lol)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 20, 2005, 9:38 AM
Post #132 of 295 (1017 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RippedCord] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

> who gets charged with the responsibility of enforcing it . . .

Initially S+TA's. (They do this now, they just don't have any guidelines to use.) Eventually canopy control coaches. As always the DZO would have to back them up.

>and HOW do they go about enforcing it?

Same way I enforced stuff at Brown. "You can't jump that Stiletto here" or "You can't jump that here until you prove that you can land your old canopy."


tspillers  (D 21601)

Jan 20, 2005, 9:39 AM
Post #133 of 295 (1017 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Designer] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

This is a reply to the group.

Based on the S&T Com Meetings, I don't think there will be a BSR. They are very interested in guidelines. There are several ideas that will be discusssed by a subcommittee in which I am on. I have been lurking the posts and there are many good ideas. Keep posting and debating (it save committee work and time).

As I have mentioned in the past, I am in favor of a chart with an advancement option. I am also interested in having canopy skills performance at each license level, but that is another issue. I also believe there should be a canopy class system. For example a class I (maybe Navigator type) has a wingloading X, but a class II (Sabre 2) has wing loading Y at the same given level. Please email me if you have any input on a way to implement this. Just post here to discuss the idea.

Todd


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 20, 2005, 9:42 AM
Post #134 of 295 (1015 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bartje] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>If someone is afraid for a lawsuit than I start thinking that they are
>not 100% sure off an decision.

I'm afraid of lawsuits. I organize at Rantoul and I'm always worried someone will get hurt and sue everyone involved (including me.)

A few years back someone in a group I organized flipped on her back, started to spin, tried to pull then just gave up. I pulled her reserve. I later found out that she probably had some brain damage from a previous accident. If I hadn't been able to get to her in time, what are the odds her family would go after me for allowing a brain-damaged woman to jump out of an airplane, even _encouraging_ her? Not zero.

Lawsuits are now a part of this sport. Skydivers sue other skydivers. It's a sad state of affairs but it is reality.

Note that this really doesn't have too much to do with the BSR - other than the fewer injuries and deaths, the fewer lawsuits.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 20, 2005, 9:48 AM
Post #135 of 295 (1009 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>For example a class I (maybe Navigator type) has a wingloading X,
> but a class II (Sabre 2) has wing loading Y at the same given level.
> Please email me if you have any input on a way to implement this.
> Just post here to discuss the idea.

There is a thread in gear+rigging to discuss this - basically, we get the manufacturers to do this. If USPA is going to just make recommendations instead of doing a BSR, no one will take them seriously (or at least, they won't take them more seriously than the manufacturer.) The manufacturer knows his canopy best, so we just get them (via PIA) to come up with a loading for each of his canopies that correspond to student/beginner/intermediate/advanced loadings.


tspillers  (D 21601)

Jan 20, 2005, 9:57 AM
Post #136 of 295 (1006 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Of Course PD already does this.

The feeling is that it will give more fuel to the I's, DZO's, S&TA's, etc. without shoving it down everyone's throat and it switches the 'grandfather' issue from 'how do we deal with it' to maybe those individuals should think about what they are jumping. It will still, as always, have to be dealt with most on the local level. Education is where we have to focus. Showing them some guidlines and training them and allowing them to perform certain skills prior to advancement.

This of course is just my opinions based on my spin of the meetings.


okalb  (D 22854)

Jan 20, 2005, 12:35 PM
Post #137 of 295 (973 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

The problem with a recommendation is the people who want to drastically exceed the chart are usually the ones who "know better" and don't want to listen to anyone.

If it is just a recommendation all we can do is tell them that it is not a good idea. We already do that now but they don't listen. If it is BSR we can tell them that it is a bad idea and you can't do it. That is the only way most of the "know it alls" will listen.

-OK


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 20, 2005, 12:35 PM
Post #138 of 295 (972 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The death count has changed. Dramatically. Thats why were havig this discussion. Ten years ago, open canopy incidents were no more prevalent than other incidents. Were you unaware of this, or do you have reason to believe that the trend has stabilized, and will not get any worse?

Fatalities Each Year:
1992 - 27 1998 - 44
1993 - 41 1999 - 27
1994 - 30 2000 - 32
1995 - 27 2001 - 35
1996 - 39 2002 - 33
1997 - 31 2003 - 25

You mean canopy deaths, I meant deaths period. Aside from the notion of find new ways to increase risk, I believe that as a whole a group responds to known incidents. After a bad rash, people act more cautiously. After a long good stretch, people get more complacent. Making discussion and dissemination of accidents critical. I wish non fatal accident information was of better quality - much more progress can be made there than on the deaths side.


Bartje  (E License)

Jan 20, 2005, 1:09 PM
Post #139 of 295 (954 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
A few years back someone in a group I organized flipped on her back, started to spin, tried to pull then just gave up. I pulled her reserve. I later found out that she probably had some brain damage from a previous accident. ....
don't they need a medical attest to skydive?
Everyone who's in my course does need an medical attest with the docters declaration that the person is fit to jump.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 20, 2005, 2:37 PM
Post #140 of 295 (937 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>Of Course PD already does this.

Yes. Unfortunately they have five categories; others have four or three categories. If we could get them to standardize on the number of levels and define them in terms of experience/training that would help.

>to maybe those individuals should think about what they are
> jumping.

Won't do much to solve the problem though. The people who are able to listen will continue to listen to people who give them advice. The problem now is there are people who simply won't listen no matter who tells them they are loading their canopies too heavily; any such advice is seen as an attack. You say "you might want some more training before jumping that canopy" and they hear "you suck and are not good enough to fly a hot canopy." So they feel they have to prove you wrong. Jesus Christ could appear unto them and tell them to upsize and they'd figure "well, Jesus doesn't swoop anyway, so he wouldn't understand my skills."

>Education is where we have to focus. Showing them some guidlines
> and training them and allowing them to perform certain skills prior
> to advancement.

I agree; but again, the people who will listen to advice to get training are the people listening now. The problem are the people who know they are so good that they don't need the training. The training-to-get-out-of-restrictions clause is intended to deal with these people.


tspillers  (D 21601)

Jan 20, 2005, 3:12 PM
Post #141 of 295 (928 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with you I think.

Are you saying we shouldn't offer a test out? If so, I think that isn't realistic. We either make the limits so high, it doesn't matter, or we penalize those who spend their time going to courses on canopy control, getting coaching, and practicing how to fly their canopies. It would be like setting a rule that you must have 50 jumps to be on a 20-way, but not allowing for the guy with 5 hours of tunnel time and 20 of his 30 jumps were SDU program.

I believe that unless DZO's and instructors get involved, then a BSR wouldn't even help. Some DZ's have already set their own limits. This has been met with much resistance. If there were a guidline that the DZ's could follow, it would make for less resistance. Also, there are many DZ's that feel that if it is printed (recommendation or BSR), it is fuel for attourney's as standard accepted practice.

I also think a recommendation would get passed easier than a BSR for w/l. I have not fact to back this up, this is just my feeling.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 20, 2005, 3:24 PM
Post #142 of 295 (923 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>Are you saying we shouldn't offer a test out?

No, we should offer an option to test out to the next level.

>I believe that unless DZO's and instructors get involved, then a BSR
> wouldn't even help.

I agree 100%. One of the most important parts of the BSR would be the training canopy coaches would get; canopy coaches (i.e. people who are able to teach HP canopy safety) can then teach canopy control to new jumpers and evaluate them when they want to test out. It is a skill that is currently lacking at some DZ's.

>I also think a recommendation would get passed easier than a BSR
> for w/l. I have not fact to back this up, this is just my feeling.

I agree, but I am not considering what would be easiest to do at this point, but rather what would be most effective.


pash

Jan 20, 2005, 4:50 PM
Post #143 of 295 (907 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
That is what our proposal says.....

It combines CC training at each license level with an increase in the WL the person can jump. If you gain weight, can't find a canopy in the range you need, whztever and next size down works but is above you max WL, then just demonstrate the ability to handle the higher WL and you get signed off.

Again, the proposal is not meant to hold anyone back that doesn't need to be held back. If someone with 50 jumps want to jump a Stiletto 89 at 1.6:1, they either won't be allowed to, or if they can demonstrate they are an exception to the rule, then they will be allowed to.

No BSR is perfect. Should every D license holder pull at 2,000 feet on every jump? No sometimes 2,000 feet is unsafe. Can someone get away with pulling below 2,000 feet? Yes, but the risk factor starts to really go up. The min pull altitude BSR was set at 2,000 partially because it is an easy number. Why not 1,900 feet or 2,100 feet? The BSR needs to be as simple as possible to be accepted. Does the BSR stop everyone from deploying under 2,00ft? No. But it does make a positive difference and give DZ's and easy BSR to enforce. You could make ahugely complicated WL SR that accounted for every little detail, but it would be so complicated it would be impractical.

Derek
Think
I wonder how many incidents have been avoided because DZ.com exists?

For anyone still in opposition to this matter, please re-read the above post. It seems to me that the experienced proponents of this BSR already understand that YOU are an ace and that this rule is only meant for the people that can't fly a small canopy properly. If this passed it wouldn't really affect you because you're probably doing just fine anyway thank you very much.

Hypothetical: What if the BSR passed and you went for sign off by jumping your hp canopy but didn't get it because [insert reason here]? Would you call that money-out-the-window or would you quietly start working on your cc skills? Would you give weight to the highly experienced coaches that acted as eye-witnesses to your [insert adjective here] landing?

This BSR would put the power in their hands instead of yours. Scary for some, sure. And I think that is the root.

jason


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 20, 2005, 5:48 PM
Post #144 of 295 (895 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RippedCord] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
It not just to protect people from themselves, its to protect the sport as a whole ...

This is an argument I fully support and can side with. Now we are making rules to protect ourselves from the actions of others.

Now, assuming that we pass such rule/requirement, who gets charged with the responsibility of enforcing it, and HOW do they go about enforcing it?

My choice would be the biggest, badest, MF on the DZ and have him use a ball bat.Smile

But I think Bill's answer is more likely to happen.

Sparky


(This post was edited by mjosparky on Jan 20, 2005, 5:48 PM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jan 21, 2005, 8:24 AM
Post #145 of 295 (848 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Are you saying we shouldn't offer a test out?

we penalize those who spend their time going to courses on canopy control, getting coaching, and practicing how to fly their canopies.

a rule that you must have 50 jumps to be on a 20-way, but not allowing for the guy with 5 hours of tunnel time and 20 of his 30 jumps were SDU program.

Keep in mind, that your 30 jump tunnel-wonder has not proven his ability track in a crowd, react to a funnel in a formation, or fly his canopy in heavy traffic.

Likewise, a student who presues canopy flying with courses and coaching is not penalized by a WL limitation. They are rewarded improved skills, and if canopy flight is their thing, they can upsize every 100 jumps, and be at a good WL for their experience.

The point to remember is that most swoopers agree, there is no rush to learning to swoop. By the time you have your basic canopy skills nailed down, say 150 or 200 jumps, you're able to jump at 1.2.

This is a fine WL for working with a double front riser approach. You need at least 100 jumps to learn both how to fly the approach, as well as deal with the increased speed (what good does a high speed swoop do you if you cannot control the canopy throughout).

Now you're ready for 90's, and can move up to 1.3, but keep mind that you need 20 jumps min. to get used to the new canopy,then another 20 or so transitioning your established skill of double fronts. Even if you moved up to 90's and wanted to donwsize at your next available interval (400 jumps), that only leaves you sixty 90 degree approaches on your canopy before upsizing. 60 jumps does not the expert make.

Do you see where this is going? The folks who are so opposed to these ideas are the up-and -commers who have a misconception about just what's involved in learning HP canopy flight. The fact is that to safely learn how to swoop, it takes enough jumps that the WL chart becomes a non-issue. When you're ready, the canopies are available to you. You don't need anything more than 1.2 to learn your basic skills, and maybe some double front stuff, and the jump number requirements on the chart are in line with when you should be working on that stuff.


All the swoopers at my DZ got into the habit of getting up early on the weekends, and flying several Cessna hop n pop loads before the Otter fires up. All of us have 1000+ jumps, and make approx 8 - 10 Otter jumps through the day, but we still make the effort to get those 3 or 4 extra swoops each day. Thats what it takes to swoop. Not 200 jumps and warm fuzzy feeling. It's not a penalty to impose a WL chart, it's reality.


(This post was edited by davelepka on Jan 21, 2005, 8:26 AM)


freakbrother  (D License)

Jan 21, 2005, 11:08 AM
Post #146 of 295 (823 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
The death count has changed. Dramatically. Thats why were havig this discussion. Ten years ago, open canopy incidents were no more prevalent than other incidents. Were you unaware of this, or do you have reason to believe that the trend has stabilized, and will not get any worse?

Fatalities Each Year:
1992 - 27 1998 - 44
1993 - 41 1999 - 27
1994 - 30 2000 - 32
1995 - 27 2001 - 35
1996 - 39 2002 - 33
1997 - 31 2003 - 25

You mean canopy deaths, I meant deaths period. .

There's a bit more detail in the attached graph.
Attachments: fatalities.gif (12.2 KB)


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 21, 2005, 12:18 PM
Post #147 of 295 (805 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakbrother] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You mean canopy deaths, I meant deaths period. .

There's a bit more detail in the attached graph.
Useful chart to the discussion. Landing is the primary cause, which flags it as worth tackling for best results, but it also shows a pretty flat line for the past 8 years, with the worst spike in the mid 90s as the HP canopies emerged.

Still wish we had a femur chart.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jan 21, 2005, 12:31 PM
Post #148 of 295 (799 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Maybe I should have been specific with my post regarding the increase in deaths. I was refering to the deaths related to open canopy incidents only.

That graph really illustrates my point. Both in the quantity, and the time frame. Since open canopy incidents have prevailed, there has been zero change regarding the training or regluation of canopy flight (with the exception of private schools).


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 21, 2005, 12:34 PM
Post #149 of 295 (798 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This BSR would put the power in their hands instead of yours. Scary for some, sure. And I think that is the root.

It certainly is a big one. This is a sport of personal freedom, and personal responsibility. The two should go hand in hand.

Some (most?) of the strongest proponents are those who made a mistake in the past and paid for it, or were closely involved to others that did. The solution might be viewed as denying people the same right to make a mistake. Is that right (fair) and appropriate?

That's a philosophical question based on personal risk beliefs, and clouded by the consideration of affected people beyond the individual jumper in question. If your answer is an total yes or no, you haven't thought it through.

At that level, I think each DZO has the right to set policy, but would prefer not to see the USPA do so.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 21, 2005, 12:50 PM
Post #150 of 295 (789 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>The solution might be viewed as denying people the same right to
>make a mistake. Is that right (fair) and appropriate?

Well:

1. We seem to have no problem denying the people the right to make mistakes like driving drunk or flying an airplane without training.

2. Often the mistake results in death. While it's all well and good to allow people to make mistakes as a learning tool, dying right afterwards does not allow much learning to take place.

3. We seem to agree as a sport that some people are simply not qualified to judge for themselves if they are ready to risk something. No DZ on the planet would let a whuffo walk onto the DZ, rent a Triathalon 190 and jump solo for the first time, even if he claimed to understand all the risks and accept them. It's not that he's lying, it's simply that he cannot yet understand the risks in what he's about to do - he has no references to compare it to.

I believe many people who downsize rapidly have the same problem. Not only do they not understand the risk they are taking, they don't even know what they don't know. Witness all the people who re-evaluate their risk taking after they see someone die for the first time.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jan 21, 2005, 1:18 PM
Post #151 of 295 (932 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
At that level, I think each DZO has the right to set policy, but would prefer not to see the USPA do so.

Why do you think that the jumpers who are most vocal in supporting these ideas are well past being effected by any changes to the rules? Is it becasue it's easy to make changes that won;t effect us? Maybe just to jerk around the little guy?


If you think so, ask yourself this, what do any of have to gain from our efforts? How does it benefit us personally to support such actions?

If you cannot think of an answer to those questions, would you consider that after years of juming, and living through the very same stage of jumping you're at now (and most of us were just starting out when the shit started hiting the fan), and seeing the pattern develop, and things get progressively worse, that we just flat out care what happens to people? Especially those people who see what we do, and persue skydiving?

Year in and year out we see that same things happening. A change must occur to stop the carnage. Not only is it sad to see, it drops the skydiving population every time, and we cannot afford those losses. Is it really going to cramp your style that much to follow the chart? If everyone else is following the same chart? Can't you show yourself to be the more gifted and skilled pilot on any canopy you are jumping? I have illustrated several times that an ambitious jumper can learn the skills and build a solid foundation on canpopies that fall within the chart guidelines. You may disagree, but I would direct your attention to the fact that as focused as you are on your jumping and swooping, I have been on mine for the last decade. In truth, I'm probably more dedicated to it than you are (ask my ex-wife living in my ex-house).

Take one for the team, and trust me when I say that in 500 jumps you'll going crazy fast, and be doing safely and with the respect of your peers. For now, pull it back a notch, and see that if you cannot crawl, how do you expect to learn how to sprint?


RippedCord  (B 26693)

Jan 21, 2005, 1:41 PM
Post #152 of 295 (925 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
...1. We seem to have no problem denying the people the right to make mistakes like driving drunk or flying an airplane without training.
...

These are mistakes that have a high probability of causing serious injury or death to others. Can we say the same about someone who uses a high performance canopy?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 21, 2005, 1:46 PM
Post #153 of 295 (921 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RippedCord] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>These are mistakes that have a high probability of causing serious injury
> or death to others. Can we say the same about someone who uses a
>high performance canopy?

I think so. It's not as much of an issue as with drunk driving because the sky is so big and the roads are so crowded, but already we've had people (including whuffo spectators) killed by swoopers. I remember one guy at our DZ who once took out the Airspeed 8-way team because they 'got in his way' (they were doing a jam-up in the mockup.) Fortunately no one was hurt, but he came close to seriously injuring both himself and several others.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 21, 2005, 2:36 PM
Post #154 of 295 (906 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
This BSR would put the power in their hands instead of yours. Scary for some, sure. And I think that is the root.

It certainly is a big one. This is a sport of personal freedom, and personal responsibility. The two should go hand in hand.

Some (most?) of the strongest proponents are those who made a mistake in the past and paid for it, or were closely involved to others that did. The solution might be viewed as denying people the same right to make a mistake. Is that right (fair) and appropriate?

That's a philosophical question based on personal risk beliefs, and clouded by the consideration of affected people beyond the individual jumper in question. If your answer is an total yes or no, you haven't thought it through.

At that level, I think each DZO has the right to set policy, but would prefer not to see the USPA do so.

You are making assumptions about peoples beliefs, their reasons for supporting a program like this and what DZO's would prefer to see done in this area.
The people I have talked support it because they feel it will help keep other agencies from stepping in and it will benefit the sport as a whole. The few DOZ's I have talked with are not against USPA take the lead on this, in fact they wish USPA would get off the dime and get it done.

Earlier you were talking about no data to support a W/L restriction and then you come up with this unsupported post.

You can't have it both ways.


(This post was edited by mjosparky on Jan 21, 2005, 2:38 PM)


RippedCord  (B 26693)

Jan 21, 2005, 2:54 PM
Post #155 of 295 (897 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>These are mistakes that have a high probability of causing serious injury
> or death to others. Can we say the same about someone who uses a
>high performance canopy?

I think so. It's not as much of an issue as with drunk driving because the sky is so big and the roads are so crowded, but already we've had people (including whuffo spectators) killed by swoopers. I remember one guy at our DZ who once took out the Airspeed 8-way team because they 'got in his way' (they were doing a jam-up in the mockup.) Fortunately no one was hurt, but he came close to seriously injuring both himself and several others.

So are we talking high probability of serious injury or risk to others or are these rare to very rare incidents? Or, are we coming down on the side of any probability or serious risk or injury to others is unacceptable and warrants more policing of a jumpers canopy size?

I think the "any probability" and potential for an outside agency to step in could be arguments in favor of an additional rule(s).


nathaniel

Jan 21, 2005, 3:07 PM
Post #156 of 295 (892 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:

Why do you think that the jumpers who are most vocal in supporting these ideas are well past being effected by any changes to the rules? Is it becasue it's easy to make changes that won;t effect us? Maybe just to jerk around the little guy?

If you think so, ask yourself this, what do any of have to gain from our efforts? How does it benefit us personally to support such actions?

I think a lot of supporters aren't able to distinguish between their good intentions and their proposals.

Life would be different if earnestly meaning well could change the character of a proposed regulation.

nathaniel


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 21, 2005, 3:12 PM
Post #157 of 295 (889 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RippedCord] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>So are we talking high probability of serious injury or risk to others
>or are these rare to very rare incidents?

Fairly rare, but then HP canopy fatalities are fairly rare as well. As drop zones get larger, traffic increases and people with less and less experience jump faster and faster canopies, the risk to everyone goes up. Not just because they can collide with people - whenever you add a jumper who can't control his canopy to a crowded landing pattern you increase the risk for everyone both in the air and on the ground.

>Or, are we coming down on the side of any probability or serious risk or
> injury to others is unacceptable and warrants more policing of a jumpers
> canopy size?

No.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 21, 2005, 3:20 PM
Post #158 of 295 (885 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Why do you think that the jumpers who are most vocal in supporting these ideas are well past being effected by any changes to the rules? Is it becasue it's easy to make changes that won;t effect us? Maybe just to jerk around the little guy?

If you think so, ask yourself this, what do any of have to gain from our efforts? How does it benefit us personally to support such actions?

Dave,

On the whole, I think the motivation is a sincere desire to eliminate obviously preventable accidents. The kind that happen to people you hope will femur, because death is a likely alternative outcome. But the proposals go much further to attempt to close down even the potential of risk. Will that increase safety? Sure. Is it good to take away the responsibility of deciding from the jumpers? Not so sure. The concern of outside interference has been raised, but I find it hard to see happening so long as the sport stays in its historical range of 20-40 fatal accidents each year.

I'm a pretty cautious jumper, but have been more aggressive in other sports. I've done glacier climbs without a huge background in little league mountaineering. I do one or two trips per year. My first dive in the Farallon Islands was #39, on the first sport diver trip out there in 15 years. These were great experiences, but in a more regimented sport, I'd never have been permitted to do them.

There's the notion that there's no rush. The sky/mountain/ocean will always be there. For most, that ends up being true, but there are no guarantees. My girlfriend died last spring at 32 from recurrent melanoma. 6 years after the initial illness, she went from perfectly fine to dead in 5 weeks. The only consolation is that she had never put off goals or interests to "next year." It reaffirmed for me the value of taking informed risks, and got me back on track from my AFF training.

Using Brian's chart as the recommended guideline while setting the never exceed to +.2 seems a better compromise. For me, the objection is really at the low end. I don't understand 1.0 as a hard limit when that's not what first rig buyers are getting. They're going 1.1, at least on the > 150 category, and don't seem to be suffering badly as a consequence.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 21, 2005, 3:30 PM
Post #159 of 295 (879 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Is it good to take away the responsibility of deciding from the jumpers? Not so sure.

Why?

Do you think the minimum deployment altitude BSR is a bad idea?

What is the difference?

Derek


obelixtim  (D 84)

Jan 21, 2005, 3:34 PM
Post #160 of 295 (876 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

 Well for you nit picking nay sayers, I have a real simple answer( for me), as a DZO who likes to give every jumper the freedom to enjoy themselves to the max......unless they threaten my (and others) livelihood and peace of mind......

I'll just ban swooping from my DZ.....from anyone I don't know or clear.....(yes, I have the power!!!Tongue)

I don't need your money....

I don't need the hassle....

I don't need the arguments....

I don't need the bad PR from your accident....

Don't need the paperwork.....

Don't need to justify my decision.....to anyone....

Simple.........and permanent.......

I'll let you worry about finding another place to jump......

If thats OK with you....of course.....

Why you no listen????.......

I know if I give you enough rope you'll end up hanging yourselves......job done!!!!....


(This post was edited by obelixtim on Jan 21, 2005, 3:44 PM)


Bartje  (E License)

Jan 21, 2005, 3:41 PM
Post #161 of 295 (888 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

freedom means learning,
who are we to decide that others can not jump a canopy if we know when we are sure that they have common sense. Common sense like they are people who wants to put it in a chart and make it a rule.When there is common sense than there is no problem, the problem is when an instructor makes a miscall at somebody. Should we not be more give more attention to the instructors course for those instructors who are giving canopycourses?
I think this can help to turn the statistics in the other direction.
Of corse you need students whith a good state of mind but I'm sure that you can do 50% better than now.
The statistics do not show the mentality from those people who did have an accident. You can use those statistics for what yiu want , I realize that the result is there, but you can put it in a context like you want.
We need good instructerscourses to start with, after that we can start to give courses at people who want's to learn but this will take years.

Everybody has the solution, it's in between your ears.
Start with a positive mind when you skydive, canopy is not more dagerous as you make it.


(This post was edited by Bartje on Jan 21, 2005, 3:42 PM)


Bartje  (E License)

Jan 21, 2005, 3:47 PM
Post #162 of 295 (881 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
.....(yes, I have the power!!!)Tongue
And, does it feel good or are you not happy with the job.


pash

Jan 21, 2005, 4:11 PM
Post #163 of 295 (871 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think a lot of supporters aren't able to distinguish between their good intentions and their proposals.

Life would be different if earnestly meaning well could change the character of a proposed regulation.

nathaniel

And they are trying to change life for the better. This isn't meaning well. This is taking an action that may be unpopular to those most affected for the benefit of those most affected.

Every counter point seems to revolve around philosophy and money. I quite like the philosophy of the leaders in this sport and I know they don't do it for the money.

YOU get to have your fast-ass canopy once you demonstrate you can fly it.


pash

Jan 21, 2005, 4:23 PM
Post #164 of 295 (868 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
But the proposals go much further to attempt to close down even the potential of risk.

Only for those that shouldn't be there in the first place. Demonstrate you can consistently fly your canopy then you can assume the risk. They aren't talking about that many jumps when you consider your potential amount of time in this sport. You may be at the skill level that would get you tested out anyway. Is it wise for those that COULD NOT get checked out on their canopy to compound the risks that already inherently exist?

Quote:
Will that increase safety? Sure.

Good enough reason for me.

Quote:
Is it good to take away the responsibility of deciding from the jumpers? Not so sure.

For those that prove they are irresponsible in their decisions, yes.


nathaniel

Jan 21, 2005, 4:55 PM
Post #165 of 295 (860 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:

YOU get to have your fast-ass canopy once you demonstrate you can fly it.

I don't want a fast ass canopy, not right now anyway. I'm quite happy with what I've got--be careful with your presumptions.

But I still think these proposals could reasonably do more harm than good, or possibly do nothing at all, and I think the burden is on the proponents to show otherwise. ie with more than their good intentions.

nathaniel


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 21, 2005, 5:08 PM
Post #166 of 295 (856 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Well for you nit picking nay sayers, I have a real simple answer( for me), as a DZO who likes to give every jumper the freedom to enjoy themselves to the max......unless they threaten my (and others) livelihood and peace of mind......

I'll just ban swooping from my DZ.....from anyone I don't know or clear.....(yes, I have the power!!!Tongue)

I fully support your right to do so, Tim. Every DZO can set their standards. If they're unreasonable, some people will choose elsewhere. Or even if they're reasonable - a large market will happily support multiple operators at differing levels of permissiveness.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 21, 2005, 5:18 PM
Post #167 of 295 (853 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Is it good to take away the responsibility of deciding from the jumpers? Not so sure.

Why?
Do you think the minimum deployment altitude BSR is a bad idea?
What is the difference?

The difference is between obvious accidents in waiting, and potential ones. I've done a couple jumps at 1.2 - at that level I've certainly increased the risk level, but nowhere near the same as if I jumped at 1.4. And the rest of my last 18 were at 1.1.

The minimum deployment BSR says Ds can open at 2000, but few do so as a matter of practice, wouldn't you agree? And lowtimers like me open at 3500 or more even if 3000 is the line.

That BSR is fairly permissive for normal practices. The 1.x for > x00 jumps chart is not. It would be the equilivent of setting As to 4000ft. Bs&Cs to 3000.

Or something like that - I'm feeling rather inarticulate right now. Maybe Nathaniel can address that more succinctly, just as he did so well a little earlier today.


parachutist  (D 25468)

Jan 21, 2005, 6:00 PM
Post #168 of 295 (848 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Again, prohibiting low turns is like outlawing impacts. I see very few incident report that do not include a hard impact, so if you just outlaw them you're good to go.

The problem is that low turns are done to avoid powerlines, fences, freeways, other jumpers etc which may or may not injure the jumper more than the low turn. It's often better to land straight ahead than to turn low, but telling someone to accept a broken back instead of a fatality is a tough call, when the other option (flat turn resulting in no injury) is an option.

A more realistic analogy to driving would be: You are saying that it's ok to tailgate, as long as they are taught how to dodge the other car's bumper at last minute.

In reality they should be taught to avoid putting themselves in a bad situation: They must plan ahead. ie: do not tailgate... do not put yourself into a situation that requires hard turns at low altitude. As students are taught from the beginning, minor 5-10 degree turns are ok and they will allow you to avoid most obstacles that may be noticed last minuute. With a little precaution there is no need for turns greater than 10 degrees below 100 ft, and attempts to make such turns would in majority of situations cause more problems than if the jumper were to fly straight ahead and make the best of the situation.

Something that I think you do not realize, because you have about 4k jumps under your belt, is that low-timers have not trained their brains to interpret data that is incoming from their senses yet (air speed felt on the skin, G's felt through the leg straps, ability to judge ground speed and altitude accurately via vision). So while you can teach them the theory of how to do safe low turns, you can not really get the knowledge into their heads until they have plenty of actual practice. This is why I say low-timers have no business doing low turns.

Also low-timers do not have a good feel for turbulence and the effects of it. Best way to get through turbulence is arms up til time to flare. So once again simple is best here for low-timers.. teach them something that will get them through a majority of bad situations: Down to 100ft? Arms up... wait, wait, wait... flare.

Chris


nathaniel

Jan 21, 2005, 6:20 PM
Post #169 of 295 (845 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Quote:
Do you think the minimum deployment altitude BSR is a bad idea?
What is the difference?
The minimum deployment BSR says Ds can open at 2000, but few do so as a matter of practice, wouldn't you agree? And lowtimers like me open at 3500 or more even if 3000 is the line.
Hooknswoop and I have gone over this in PMs, and to rehash:

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I cannot show that the pull-altitude BSR is bad, and that's why I'm not (not right now, anyway) debating for its repeal.

We cannot simply compare pull-altitudes before and after, because pull-altitudes are not the sumtotal of jumpers' actions, and the pull-altitude BSR wasn't the only thing that changed in the early '90s that could influence jumpers' behaviour, specifically pull altitude.

But, I think it's not just a co-incidence that the first reliable AADs entered the market in the early '90s, and that their introduction co-incided with decreases in no-pull incidents. What would the fatality results look like if we were to count AAD saves as no-pulls? There's been several dozen of them.

While some of them were jumpers showing extremely poor judgement and deciding not to pull & "waiting for the CYPRES to fire", it's unreasonable to think that reliable AADs have not contributed to the decline in no-pull fatalities.

Whereas there's little evidence at all (at least that I've seen), to indicate that the pull-altitude BSR has had any effect, plus or minus. Other than the time-correlation that it shares with reliable AADs.

And there's nothing to say that both reliable AADs and pull-altitude rules couldn't be factors simultaneously. Just the evidence we have pertains more to AADs than to pull-altitude rules.

The question we're debating here is not whether pull-altitude rules are good or bad, it's whether new rules about wing loadings are justified, and the two are not comparable. Although if you like we can start a separate thread to debate the merits of pull-altitude rules, inside & outside the context of reliable AADs. Tongue

nathaniel


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 21, 2005, 6:27 PM
Post #170 of 295 (841 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bartje] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
if we know when we are sure that they have common sense. Common sense like they are people who wants to put it in a chart and make it a rule.

Common sense is not that common, if it was we would not be having this discussion. Doing 45 mph in a hook turn, 50 feet off the ground, common sense sometimes eludes the best of us. At times like that, experience and training might be your last hope.

No one wants to hold any one down, or hold them back. The goal is to provide you with the tools and skills to go were you want to go safely. By doing it safely, at least safer, it will keep the DZO's from some kind of complete ban on HP canopies and swooping and keep the Feds. for looking hard at us.

The reason we have a altitude BSR is because people were dying pulling low and the Feds. were not happy. There was a time when the State of California was also in the business of regulating skydiving. With some firm guidelines in place the got out of the business. Do you want to give them a reason to open shop again?

Sparky


(This post was edited by mjosparky on Jan 21, 2005, 6:34 PM)


RippedCord  (B 26693)

Jan 21, 2005, 6:46 PM
Post #171 of 295 (829 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
...There was a time when the State of California was also in the business of regulating skydiving. With some firm guidelines in place the got out of the business. Do you want to give them a reason to open shop again?

Sparky

Wow, so this is not just a scenario with real possibilities, but one that has already happened.

I'm curious to learn more about what brought about that type of intervention, how deep it got, and what the guidelines were that resulted in the state gov't getting out.


pash

Jan 21, 2005, 7:05 PM
Post #172 of 295 (824 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
YOU get to have your fast-ass canopy once you demonstrate you can fly it.


In reply to:
I don't want a fast ass canopy, not right now anyway. I'm quite happy with what I've got--be careful with your presumptions.

But I still think these proposals could reasonably do more harm than good, or possibly do nothing at all, and I think the burden is on the proponents to show otherwise. ie with more than their good intentions.

YOU plural. I cannot make a presumption about you specifically because you offer no specific information. Remember, I asked about jump numbers so I could better understand from what category from which you're coming? Maybe it's ad hominem to ask but patterns exist and I listen up when people who've been around long enough see these patterns and speak about them.

As a matter of fact, my opinion is that it's not up to the USPA, DZO's, S&TA's, or leadership to PROVE it to anyone. YOU plural (which will include me) may just be entering a time where it is up to us to PROVE we can do it before they decide to give you permission. There are a lot of individualistic aspects to this sport but BSR's got to be BSR's for a reason: Time and experience of the people who payed attention to what was happening around them and did something about it - not pontificating over the bruised egos of people who had to let go of a perceived entitlement.

jason


pash

Jan 21, 2005, 7:10 PM
Post #173 of 295 (822 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I've done a couple jumps at 1.2 - at that level I've certainly increased the risk level, but nowhere near the same as if I jumped at 1.4. And the rest of my last 18 were at 1.1.

Question: do you think if there were a BSR, that you would be able to demonstrate proficiency at 1.2?

I'm not quite sure I could right away but I certainly plan to work my ass off to learn good canopy control skills.


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Jan 21, 2005, 7:20 PM
Post #174 of 295 (816 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

[reply By doing it safely, at least safer, it will keep the DZO's from some kind of complete ban on HP canopies and swooping and keep the Feds. for looking hard at us.
devils advocate again: wont the skydivers (or possibly the dzo) find a place for them to swoop that is not dzo property so the "liability" is gone? or if the dzo bans swooping, do you think "out" landings would skyrocket (out of sight that is)?


nathaniel

Jan 21, 2005, 8:23 PM
Post #175 of 295 (803 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
There are a lot of individualistic aspects to this sport but BSR's got to be BSR's for a reason: Time and experience of the people who payed attention to what was happening around them and did something about it
And what do they have to show for it? A fatality rate that's not changed significantly over time, only changed in its incidence.

No, time and experience are indisputable.

At least they were till the Rennaissance.

It's strictly possible that, should a BSR be passed, it could potentially do good. Irrespective of how it would turn out, though, that the outcome is uncertain today makes it a bad idea to do so today. The USPA ought to exercise greater jurisprudence.

Having good quantitative data to back up a proposal would go a long way to justify a proposal. Having a rational basis for a proposal would go further.

nathaniel


pash

Jan 21, 2005, 10:11 PM
Post #176 of 295 (998 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
There are a lot of individualistic aspects to this sport but BSR's got to be BSR's for a reason: Time and experience of the people who payed attention to what was happening around them and did something about it

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what do they have to show for it? A fatality rate that's not changed significantly over time, only changed in its incidence.

No, time and experience are indisputable.

At least they were till the Rennaissance.

It's strictly possible that, should a BSR be passed, it could potentially do good. Irrespective of how it would turn out, though, that the outcome is uncertain today makes it a bad idea to do so today. The USPA ought to exercise greater jurisprudence.

Having good quantitative data to back up a proposal would go a long way to justify a proposal. Having a rational basis for a proposal would go further.

nathaniel

nice work linking the definition of "renaissance" to dictionary.com and "time" and "experience" to the skeptic's dictionary.com in your post!

Fortunately for myself and other new skydivers, the true teachers in this sport are putting just a little more effort into their arguments. I look at their words and I look at your words. I guess you'll understand if I'm a little "skeptical" of your stance as well!

jason


(This post was edited by pash on Jan 21, 2005, 10:14 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 21, 2005, 10:22 PM
Post #177 of 295 (995 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
[reply By doing it safely, at least safer, it will keep the DZO's from some kind of complete ban on HP canopies and swooping and keep the Feds. for looking hard at us.

devils advocate again: wont the skydivers (or possibly the dzo) find a place for them to swoop that is not dzo property so the "liability" is gone? or if the dzo bans swooping, do you think "out" landings would skyrocket (out of sight that is)?
You do know that almost all "out landings" are a trespass on someones property. You are landing on their property without their permission, do you think they want the "liability". How long do you think that will last before there is a court order against the DZO?

And trust me, most DZO's are not stupid, they will probably notice after 2 or3 weeks that certain people are always landing "off". And remember, to land "off" you have to get "on" his airplane.

Why is everyone trying to come up with ways around something that is not even a reality at this point. Did it ever dawn on people to learn the skills to fly your canopy, get signed off, and not worry about it anymore. I can think of only one reason people would oppose this without knowing how it would work and that reason has nothing to do with Freedom.

You guys are the future of the sport, do what ever you want.Unsure

Sparky


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 22, 2005, 4:56 AM
Post #178 of 295 (983 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Are you posting because you like to debate or because you have an opinion?

With regards to a WL BSR proposal, why not be more positive? Instead of trying to tear everyone else down, which it appears you are just doing for sport, and do some research? Come up with solutions. Put YOUR ideas out there to stepped on and hammered into nothing.

I/we do not have to get past you or prove anything to you. You are not the self appointed "BSR-reviewer".

You want a study? Too bad. You aren't going to get one. At the last FAR NPRM, the USPA was against mandatory incident reporting, so the stastics just don't exist. I'm sure there will be pilot program and if the whole idea is bad, it'll be discovered and dropped then with little harm done.

You don't think time and experience count for anything? I'll arrange for my old VX-60 to get shipped out to you for you to jump. You shouldn't have a problem, if time and experience don't matter.

We are trying to make things better and you want to play debate games. In the meantime, people are getting seriouslt injured and killed needlessly. Just like pilots, canopy pilots need time and experience before downsizing. They need training and instruction before jumping smaller, faster canopies. Otherwise the risk factor is simply too large and people get hurt too easily. You can link disctionaries and argument web sites all you want, but that doesn't change the truth. The truth is caqnopies have evolved, but jumpers haven't.

No BSR is perfect. This one allows for it's failings with the test-out option. If the jumper can exceeed the BSR, they will be allowed to.

If you don't think their is a problem, I'm sorry. When someone with a lot more experience on a subject than me tells me something. I listen. I didn't always and have some bad experiences to show for it.

If you still won't listen, then I don't want to listen to you say the same things over and over again anymore. Stop 'helping', because you aren't helping.

I;m sorry for the rant, I'm just sick and tired you your games. Some people are trying to make things better and you don't give a damn.

Derek


stratostar  (Student)

Jan 22, 2005, 5:06 AM
Post #179 of 295 (983 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

You forgot the part about, go ahead and try to dial in that HP swoop in an off landing, more shit to sneak up to bite you in the ass doing that, but seeing how we have sooooo many hot shots who can handle anything that comes their way all they will have to worry about is some pissed off farmer with a shot gun.Wink

~


obelixtim  (D 84)

Jan 22, 2005, 6:37 AM
Post #180 of 295 (977 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bartje] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

 I've been quite happy with the job for 25 years now......"having the power" was not an egocentric statement at all........ its just a simple fact..........a statement to reinforce the fact that ALL DZO's have this power, and can choose to use it or not, in anyway they like.......

Arguing till you're blue in the face about "your" "rights" with a DZO will not cut any ice with them.....and is not the way to persuade them to bend to your wants.....after all they don't owe you anything.....

Just warning about possible negative effects of refusing to accept that an improvement in the accident rate is necessary.....the proposals here are a good way to start....

To others who suggest setting up their own DZ's, go for it.......and good luck.....you'll need it......


hhh


Designer  (D 5771)

Jan 22, 2005, 7:14 AM
Post #181 of 295 (972 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Sounds like you have a solid start on the solution.Not only a class system will be needed but a way to progress with or with out attending a canopy control class.(seminar)A reasonably good canopy pilot should know how his/her canopy flys in about 25 jumps.This includes almost all conditions,also when to sit a jump out because it does not feel safe.Some pilots A-C license holders will need less or more jumps to feel safe.A simple test can be taken to advance to the next level.Anymore Ideas?rob


tspillers  (D 21601)

Jan 22, 2005, 9:08 AM
Post #182 of 295 (956 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Designer] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

We will have to adress this in an all emcopassing angle, not just people wanting to swoop. There are many reasons (not always valid) people downsize: drive into wind on windy days, smaller container, more responsive, etc. We will have to set a minimum with consideration from coached progressed swoop wanna-be's to the just want to fly faster non-swoppers. Of course the latter will be less effected I think. Some of the fatalities are still in that area: I don't want to swoop, I fly conservative, yadda yadda......land off in tight area, turn low to avoid power lines and smack the ground.

Todd


nathaniel

Jan 22, 2005, 9:35 AM
Post #183 of 295 (950 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
With regards to a WL BSR proposal, why not be more positive? Instead of trying to tear everyone else down, which it appears you are just doing for sport, and do some research? Come up with solutions. Put YOUR ideas out there to stepped on and hammered into nothing.
If you never consider dissent, you'll start to find all sorts of corkscrew ideas can become palatable over time.

Is it possible for you to conceive that I mean just as well as you, only I've got a different perspective?

Quote:
I/we do not have to get past you or prove anything to you. You are not the self appointed "BSR-reviewer".

You don't have to prove anything to anybody.

And you're still linking me to my words. You seem unwilling or incapable of judging the concepts on their merits.

Quote:
You don't think time and experience count for anything? I'll arrange for my old VX-60 to get shipped out to you for you to jump. You shouldn't have a problem, if time and experience don't matter.

I think they have value, but I think they've proven to be seriously unreliable when they stand alone. For the same reason that you wouldn't ship your VX to just any random jumper with more than 1000 jumps and more than 5 years in the sport.

Quote:
We are trying to make things better and you want to play debate games.

I am trying to make things better, but I'm not able to come up with any particularly good ideas. I try not to get upset with others when I can't reasonably defend my ideas, I let them go and move on. In fact, if you dig through the history of this forum you'll find that I did put up some ideas and they were quickly dashed to bits. I do not cling to them.

Some problems are difficult to solve. We should not get distracted by trying to turn lead to gold.

Quote:
In the meantime, people are getting seriouslt injured and killed

No contention here about that. Given the graveness of this situation, it is especially key that we not let our emotions mislead us.

nathaniel


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 22, 2005, 9:56 AM
Post #184 of 295 (943 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If you never consider dissent, you'll start to find all sorts of corkscrew ideas can become palatable over time.

There is a difference between constructive crititism and playing debating games for sport.

Quote:
Is it possible for you to conceive that I mean just as well as you, only I've got a different perspective?

Sure, but you are not helping. People are pounding in on canopies they shouldn't be jumping and need guidence and education and you want a study. This isn't NASA.

Quote:
And you're still linking me to my words. You seem unwilling or incapable of judging the concepts on their merits.

Not at all. The concept that we need a study or that BSR's that are not researched with big budgets and commitees are a bad idea.

Quote:
I think they have value, but I think they've proven to be seriously unreliable when they stand alone.

There are more than one person with a lot of experience and time that realize that a WL BSR is a good idea. Seems to me that is the only thing we have and it works. Why screw with sucess, especially when we aren't going to get stastics, committes, budjets and reserach studies.

Quote:
am trying to make things better, but I'm not able to come up with any particularly good ideas.

Yes, I know. So let people that do have good ideas figure this out.

Quote:
I try not to get upset with others when I can't reasonably defend my ideas, I let them go and move on. In fact, if you dig through the history of this forum you'll find that I did put up some ideas and they were quickly dashed to bits. I do not cling to them.

Good. Let go of this one.

Some problems are difficult to solve. We should not get distracted by trying to turn lead to gold.
Exactly. There is a problem. Let's fix it. It isn't that complicated or that difficult as you are trying to make it. We can afford to impliment a less than perfect BSR and change it to make it as good as possible. A pilot program should work out any problems or even reveal if the whole idea is bad. But you want to continue to debate the issue. How many more people have to hammer in under canopies they aren't ready for before you'll wake up?

Quote:
No contention here about that. Given the graveness of this situation, it is especially key that we not let our emotions mislead us.

And it is important that this gets done, the sooner, the better. You seem to be willing to debate it forever and against it as long as there isn't proof that a WL BSR will work. Stop putting your efforts into slowing things down, and put your efforts into speeding things up.

This idea has been debated for a long time and has been refined down to a very good proposal. Stop debating and help, or don't help and be quiet.

Derek
Quote:


penniless  (B License)

Jan 22, 2005, 10:25 AM
Post #185 of 295 (940 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Are you posting because you like to debate or because you have an opinion?

With regards to a WL BSR proposal, why not be more positive? Instead of trying to tear everyone else down, which it appears you are just doing for sport, and do some research? Come up with solutions. Put YOUR ideas out there to stepped on and hammered into nothing.

I/we do not have to get past you or prove anything to you. You are not the self appointed "BSR-reviewer".

Sorry, that is an unhelpful attitude.

The burden is on those proposing a new rule to show that it is needed, that it will do the job it's supposed to do, and that it is acceptable to the skydiving community. This continuing debate shows that you still have a way to go.

With respect to criticism:

The folks who noticed Newton's Laws didn't work for the orbit of Mercury weren't the same folks who came up with Special and General Relativity. But those folks triggered the search for the explanation.

The folks who noticed that electrons didn't behave according to the rules weren't the ones that came up with quantum mechanics. But these folks triggered the search that came up with QM.

The folks that noticed Uranus wasn't orbiting properly weren't the same ones that discovered Neptune, but no-one would have looked for Neptune unless the Uranus anomalies had been observed and written about.

Just because Nathaniel sees problems with your proposal doesn't imply that he has to know how to write a better one.


nathaniel

Jan 22, 2005, 10:33 AM
Post #186 of 295 (938 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
People are pounding in on canopies they shouldn't be jumping and need guidence and education and you want a study.
If we can't have a study. let's at least have some good reaoning.

Quote:
The concept that we need a study or that BSR's that are not researched with big budgets and commitees are a bad idea.
Rational arguments are free.

Quote:
There are more than one person with a lot of experience and time that realize that a WL BSR is a good idea.
From other posts on this board it appears that there are more than one person with a lot of experience and time that realize that a WL BSR hasn't been adequately justified.

Quote:
Seems to me that is the only thing we have and it works. Why screw with sucess
Well sure, if you only consider the successes, the success rate is 100%.

Quote:
So let people that do have good ideas figure this out.
And let whosoever shall figure this out produce some sound arguments for whatever they come up with.

Quote:
How many more people have to hammer in under canopies they aren't ready for before you'll wake up?
I'm not going to touch this one. You complain about debating games, yet you produce remarks like this.

Quote:
And it is important that this gets done, the sooner, the better.
It's important that whatsoever gets done, is done with the reasonable expecation that it shall improve the situation. As soon as we have such a means, we should exercise it, but not before.

nathaniel


obelixtim  (D 84)

Jan 22, 2005, 2:11 PM
Post #187 of 295 (916 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

 I agree with hooknswoop.....you are arguing for the sake of argument.......but your contribution to solving the problem seems to be zero.......

Its time for positive action, we've had enough hot air......

A BSR WILL have a positive effect on the accident rate.....no question about that.....but it will take some time after its introduction before we see meaningful statistics on a national/international scale......thats how it goes in a sport like ours.......as you may find out if you stick around long enough to find out......

The rest of us will still be involved.....and we'll notice results fairly soon....because we can compare events on our DZ's with previous experience.....

Thats what experience teaches us......


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Jan 22, 2005, 4:18 PM
Post #188 of 295 (898 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Tim,

I do think a BSR along with good education will go a long way to bring down the incidents. The focus of this thread has been on fatalities, but my experiences around the dropzone indicate that a LARGE number of broken bones are because of botched landing attempts. I think people forget (or don't bother cause the data isn't as readily available or reported even) to look at the incidents that don't end in a fatality. If they did, I think they'd find there are a lot more accidents happening than they initially realize.

My question to you is, as a DZO, do you enforce something along the current recommended guidelines? If so have you noticed a drop in incidents at your dz since it's implementation?

Blues,
Ian


(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on Jan 22, 2005, 4:20 PM)


mnealtx  (B 30496)

Jan 22, 2005, 11:52 PM
Post #189 of 295 (867 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

No, it can't be made perfect for everyone, that's true.... but it can be made BETTER for damn near everyone, and that's what they're striving for.

Please, if you have specific misgivings, then mention them - right now it looks like you're thread-crapping just because you can...


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 23, 2005, 1:17 AM
Post #190 of 295 (861 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Are you posting because you like to debate or because you have an opinion?

Quote:
I agree with hooknswoop.....you are arguing for the sake of argument.......but your contribution to solving the problem seems to be zero.......

Quote:
Please, if you have specific misgivings, then mention them - right now it looks like you're thread-crapping just because you can...

Nathaniel,

If you remember, we had this very discussion in some other posts. You come across as a first year student of "reason & logic". But as I mentioned before, this is the real world we are dealing with. The neat and tidy solutions you are taught in class sometimes need to be "tweeked" when it come to solving a real problem. This is not the place to argue just because you feel you are good at.

You seen to be fairly intelligent so you should be able to come up with something specific to contribute. You say we need a study, well here is a chance for you to make an impact on the outcome of this program. You should be able to have that completed by the next USPA board meeting.

If you feel a study is needed to determine something needs to be done and done soon, you are not paying attention.

2003 50% of fatalities in the US were under good canopies.
2004 40% of fatalities in the us were under good canopies.

Show us the logic and reason in that!

Sparky


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 23, 2005, 3:49 AM
Post #191 of 295 (858 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mnealtx] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Please, if you have specific misgivings, then mention them - right now it looks like you're thread-crapping just because you can...

Thread-crapping would be trashing the poster rather than the arguments being made. This is supposed to be a discussion group, not a lecture hall. Somehow an admonishment to sit down and shut up seems out of place. Mention misgivings? Sheesh - the thread is here. Only works if someone wants to hear.

Had a nice day - the weather and my schedule finally allowed me back in the air. With 6 weeks off, I had another one of those decisions to make on rental choice, with surprising results. It's very rewarding taking responsibility for oneself.

Good luck with La Mancha, folks.


pash

Jan 23, 2005, 7:06 AM
Post #192 of 295 (846 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Thread-crapping would be trashing the poster rather than the arguments being made. This is supposed to be a discussion group, not a lecture hall. Somehow an admonishment to sit down and shut up seems out of place. Mention misgivings? Sheesh - the thread is here. Only works if someone wants to hear.

If you read through the posts of the guy mnealtx is replying to, it just doesn't seem to be all that "discussion" oriented. I would agree 100% with Sparky and when he said it sounds like first-year logic coming out. NOT that the guy isn't intelligent and cannot contribute anything, but that he is overzealous in applying everything he was taught, or self-taught, about philosophy to SKYDIVING.

He should see that his adherence to the wisdom of logic set down by those before him (i.e. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Locke, Sartes, Camus, etc...) is ironic given that he will not listen to the people in the sport he chooses to participate in today. Perhaps he was taught to question everything and that's what he's slavishly doing.


Liemberg  (Student)

Jan 23, 2005, 7:37 AM
Post #193 of 295 (843 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
applying everything he was taught, or self-taught, about philosophy to SKYDIVING.

Why not? The people from 'Monty Python' did it with soccer. Smile

Quote:
Perhaps he was taught to question everything and that's what he's slavishly doing.

Questioning everything is one of the best childish qualities there is, though tiresome at times... Smile


okalb  (D 22854)

Jan 23, 2005, 7:50 AM
Post #194 of 295 (842 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I think they have value, but I think they've proven to be seriously unreliable when they stand alone. For the same reason that you wouldn't ship your VX to just any random jumper with more than 1000 jumps and more than 5 years in the sport.

I think that statement is the key right there. If you ask that question of most highly experienced jumpers, the answer would be yes, I'll ship it to them. Experience and time in the sport has shown us that MOST people with a thousand jumps and 5 years in the sport are realistic about their own abilities and have seen enough people get hurt to not jump something they can't handle. The problem is less experienced jumpers who drastically over-estimate their abilities.

There are exceptions to every rule on both sides of the equation, but rules are not written for the exceptions. There are plenty of drivers who can safely handle their cars at speeds that far exceed the speed limits. The speed limits are designed for the masses not the few. The fact that we are proposing a test out option for the exceptions makes it fair for all.

It always seems odd to me that whenever this debate comes up it is the people with the least experience that argue the loudest against regulation. The same people that we are trying to protect from themselves.

I know a person who has recently bought a velocity that everyone on the DZ agrees he is nowhere near ready for. A bunch of us who jump velocities have all tried to talk to him about why he shouldn't jump it. We are all experienced on this canopy and have gotten into specifics about the flight characteristics and why he isn't ready. His response was that all of the other velo jumpers just don't want anyone else in their club. We just don't want him to compete with us using the same tools we use. Unfortunately, that is the mentality of a lot off the lower experienced jumpers. By the way, the person that I am talking about already jumps a stiletto loaded at around 1.6 to 1 and want to switch to the velo at over 2 to 1. His landing on the stiletto are far from stellar. Did I mention that he has under 400 jumps total and has been jumping for over 3 years.

-OK


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 23, 2005, 8:07 AM
Post #195 of 295 (839 views)
Shortcut
Re: [okalb] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I know a person who has recently bought a velocity that everyone on the DZ agrees he is nowhere near ready for. A bunch of us who jump velocities have all tried to talk to him about why he shouldn't jump it. We are all experienced on this canopy and have gotten into specifics about the flight characteristics and why he isn't ready. His response was that all of the other velo jumpers just don't want anyone else in their club. We just don't want him to compete with us using the same tools we use. Unfortunately, that is the mentality of a lot off the lower experienced jumpers. By the way, the person that I am talking about already jumps a stiletto loaded at around 1.6 to 1 and want to switch to the velo at over 2 to 1. His landing on the stiletto are far from stellar. Did I mention that he has under 400 jumps total and has been jumping for over 3 years.

The smart thing for you to do at this stage is to have this guy fill out an "incident form" now for future use. Would save you a lot of trouble later.Unsure

Sparky


obelixtim  (D 84)

Jan 23, 2005, 8:24 AM
Post #196 of 295 (832 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

    
Best get him to fill out a fatality report as well...just in case......nothing like being prepared....

.....Or......dig a hole on the DZ and tell him thats where you're gonna put all the bits......


penniless  (B License)

Jan 23, 2005, 9:03 AM
Post #197 of 295 (821 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If you feel a study is needed to determine something needs to be done and done soon, you are not paying attention.

2003 50% of fatalities in the US were under good canopies.
2004 40% of fatalities in the us were under good canopies.

How many of them would have been affected by the proposal? Were they ALL inexperienced people with high WL? THAT is the critical question.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Jan 23, 2005, 9:08 AM
Post #198 of 295 (819 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

 Hi Ian....in answer to your question.....

On my DZ I'm there fulltime so its relatively easy for me to control who does what....and after being part of a CRW team in 1991 that switched to 92 sq ft 9 cell ZP canopies in an attempt to do even faster rotations.....we quickly found out the potential these canopies had for great rotation times, but also serious landing injury......

Did a lot of thinking and discussing (being in a team was really helpful, because we were all different weights and sizes) we came up with our own ideas that basically go along with the current proposals.

The swooping phenomenon didn't really come along as a serious issue amongst the general skydiving population for a few years after that....but I already had a head start in terms of experience and the like, so I was able to warn all my jumpers of some of the pitfalls....I was lucky because no one on my DZ challenged me.....

Problems only came with visiting jumpers, but I solved that by requiring them to be briefed by myself or one of my senior DZSO's if I was away.......

My DZ is 1300 ft above sea level....so a good way to start was to ask a question along the lines of...."have you adjusted your altimeter back to ground level?......and, if so what does that mean? ( for landing)."

Often, getting a blank look in reply told me all I needed to know......and I briefed accordingly......

"Spotting the dolt" became quite easy....young, loud, inexperienced, latest gear, wanting to impress someone....

Despite this, I did have a spate of crash and burns at one stage.......no fatals but a couple of femurs and lots of bruises and scrapes.......

I realised this was a result of showing off......so I created a swooping zone about 500 metres from the main landing area......and the injury rate went right down to zero.....because the part time swooper showoffs had no audience to impress....and they were too lazy to walk......also kept them away from Tandems and Students....

We didn't have any formal guidelines to use, so I just relied on experience and common sense.....and most people were OK with that.....because on my DZ my word was law.....anyone who didn't agree took the long walk off the short plank.....

The accident rate DEFINITLY dropped with some basic DZ rules in place....

But I'm told on this board by a few that I have no basis for my views.......oh well.....Crazy


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 9:18 AM
Post #199 of 295 (816 views)
Shortcut
Re: [penniless] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
How many of them would have been affected by the proposal?

All of them that had a "B" license or higher.

All of them that exceeded the WL chart.

Quote:
Were they ALL inexperienced people with high WL?

That is not the only people that this proposal will affect in a positive manner.

Derek


penniless  (B License)

Jan 23, 2005, 9:18 AM
Post #200 of 295 (816 views)
Shortcut
Re: [okalb] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There are exceptions to every rule on both sides of the equation, but rules are not written for the exceptions. There are plenty of drivers who can safely handle their cars at speeds that far exceed the speed limits. The speed limits are designed for the masses not the few. The fact that we are proposing a test out option for the exceptions makes it fair for all.

ROFL. We have some BSR proponents telling us we can't have the research to really find out what's going on, and now you claim to know what is the rule and what is the exception. How do you know what is "the rule" if the research hasn't been done?

I submit the the "rule" is that most low time jumpers with small canopies get on just fine, and that the injuries and fatalities are the exception. Yes, I HAVE read the fatality reports. One thing that jumps out at me is that jumpers of all experience levels and all canopy types and sizes are represented among the landing fatalities, with no one group prominent.


penniless  (B License)

Jan 23, 2005, 9:23 AM
Post #201 of 295 (995 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
How many of them would have been affected by the proposal?

All of them that had a "B" license or higher.

All of them that exceeded the WL chart.



Derek

That is a non-answer. Does that mean you didn't bother to find out?


nathaniel

Jan 23, 2005, 9:35 AM
Post #202 of 295 (993 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mnealtx] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Please, if you have specific misgivings, then mention them - right now it looks like you're thread-crapping just because you can...

I apologize if it seems like I'm thread-pooping. I'm not out to stifle the BSR proposal(s) for being what it is, rather I'd like to see some better justification for it & I'd like to see people think a little more rationally about it.

Honestly, I'd join the chorus of proponents with the same vigor if I were convinced of the BSR proposal's appropriateness.

For instance, I'm more convinced by Kallend's old proposal of restricting people by age & sex, than by jump #. But I know that wouldn't go over well with your average jumper.

nathaniel


Andrewwhyte  (C 1988)

Jan 23, 2005, 9:42 AM
Post #203 of 295 (991 views)
Shortcut
Re: [penniless] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

I submit the the "rule" is that most low time jumpers with small canopies get on just fine, and that the injuries and fatalities are the exception.
In reply to:

Most drunk drivers get home without incident.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 9:44 AM
Post #204 of 295 (990 views)
Shortcut
Re: [penniless] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
That is a non-answer. Does that mean you didn't bother to find out?

No, it means that the proposal will affect everyone that starts jumping after (and if) it is put in place.

Education and training will reduce injuries and fatalities. That is a no-brainer. That will affect a jumper even when they have 10,000 skydives, because they learned good basics from the start.

Keeping people off canopies they aren't ready for yet will reduce injuries and fatalities. That is also a no-brainer. The test-out clause allows the exceptions to the rule to not be held back by it.

Currently, there is no rule that says someone with 50 jumps can't jump a Stiletto 97 loaded at 2:1 when they can't land a Sabre 150. That is stupid.

I fail to see how training and education and keeping people from jumping canopies they shouldn't be jumping, unless thy really are an exception tot he rule is a bad idea in any way. The current system of the S & TA saying "no.", doesn't work. They don't have a uniform policy, like the minimum deployment altitude BSR to go by.

I'll address questions and criticism of the proposal, but just debating for debating is silly. If someone would like to discuss improving or adjusting the proposal to make it better and work out of the box, great. If someone wants to take the attitude of "It's their idea, they have to prove to me we need it and it'll work", lose the attitude. This isn't an ‘us against them’ thing. This is a skydivers thing and skydivers are all in it together. It won't affect me in the slightest, I don't jump anymore. This is my last little crusade. I don’t have to pick up the pieces anymore.

So instead of asking, “Does that mean you didn't bother to find out?” Find out. Don’t let everyone else to the work for you. You are in this too, whether you realize it or not. Be a part of the solution. Present evidence, not just arguments. Present solutions, not just debate. Present ideas, don’t just shoot down others’ ideas.

Derek


penniless  (B License)

Jan 23, 2005, 9:46 AM
Post #205 of 295 (988 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andrewwhyte] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

I submit the the "rule" is that most low time jumpers with small canopies get on just fine, and that the injuries and fatalities are the exception.
In reply to:

Most drunk drivers get home without incident.

Right.

Just to keep people honest, this BSR proposal is for the EXCEPTION and not the RULE. Don't pretend otherwise, it weakens your case.


nathaniel

Jan 23, 2005, 9:47 AM
Post #206 of 295 (987 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Put YOUR ideas out there to stepped on and hammered into nothing.
OK. Here's an idea.

How about a gray-list.

Instead of trying to find some illusory boundary between safe jumpers & dangerous jumpers primarily by their jump numbers, or perhaps in addition to a BSR proposal, why not put together a central watch-list of jumpers displaying unsafe tendencies. Just a list of USPA license numbers. Little or no other personally identifying information. And only DZO's & certified S&TO's could nominate a jumper to the list.

Not so much a blacklist, you wouldn't want to kick them out of the sport, but a way to communicate between DZ's about people who may need additional guidance.

An entry would expire without a trace after a fixed amount of time, say 1 year, or say, until another DZO & S&TA would recommend them off (I know, unlikely).

Since all (practically all?) DZ's will record jumpers USPA number before letting them jump, it would be a way for DZ's to address problem jumpers going from one DZ to the next.

nathaniel


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Jan 23, 2005, 9:51 AM
Post #207 of 295 (985 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Tim,

Thanks for the reply. It's pretty much as I expected in that the incident rates dropped. To me, that's just another indicator that some sort of regulation will work. Sure, it's not going to keep those who are determined to become a smoking crater from becoming so, but I believe it'll help those who are genuinely nothing more than a little overly enthusiastic from becoming one unnecessarily.

To those saying that there are plenty of people jumping small canopies and not dying, I believe that while this may be true, what has not been seen or reported is that the majority of those who get in over their head with small canopies have injured themselves in some way, often seriously enough to brake a bone. If the impact was hard enough to femur on, it was almost definitely hard enough to kill you (doesn't take much but a decent blow to the noodle).

Stop focusing on the fatalities only and look around at general injuries at dropzones. I think you'll find they are more regular than it initially seems, but just not as sensationalized(sp?).

We'll never be able to protect everyone from themselves, nor do I think we should try and cater for every possible scenario. What I think we should do is set up a reasonable set of guidelines that allow an accomplished pilot to progress faster but still under supervision. I think the current proposal addresses that quite well. It allows those who think they can progress faster to test themselves, and if they pass continue on unheeded, but also prevent those who are not capable from moving forward to wing sizes and loadings that are less likely to result in a favorable landing.

Blues,
Ian


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 9:53 AM
Post #208 of 295 (983 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

How would a gray list prevent a jumper with 200 jumps that shoulodn't be flying a Stiletto 120 at 1.5:1 from hammering in?

A 'watch list' is a good idea to keep jumpers are grounded from jumping their too-small canopy from going down the road and jumping it. An easier solution would be requiring the jumper to have on their license, the max WL they are allowed to jump. They buy a canopy they can;t handle and grounded at their home DZ and try to go down the road and that DZ grounds them after looking at their license. People that try and lie about their WL will be catch quickly and then they won't ba able to jump anywhere, regardless of WL.

Derek

Derek


penniless  (B License)

Jan 23, 2005, 10:00 AM
Post #209 of 295 (979 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:


So instead of asking, “Does that mean you didn't bother to find out?” Find out. Don’t let everyone else to the work for you. You are in this too, whether you realize it or not. Be a part of the solution. Present evidence, not just arguments. Present solutions, not just debate. Present ideas, don’t just shoot down others’ ideas.

Derek

Why should I have to find the evidence to support your proposal? Surely YOU are the one obliged to provide evidence to support your own proposal.

My question is very simple, what % of the landing fatalities over the last 2 years could have been prevented by a WL restriction as you propose? If you can't answer that, then be honest about it and not just lash out at those of us who'd like more information.

I'm sure you are a very well meaning man, but your "I know I'm right so I don't need to present any facts and anyone that asks is an obstructionist" is an unhelpful attitude.

I gather that our elected representatives on the USPA BOD are not rushing to implemement your proposal, so maybe they would like more information too.


Andrewwhyte  (C 1988)

Jan 23, 2005, 10:01 AM
Post #210 of 295 (977 views)
Shortcut
Re: [penniless] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Actually I don't have a case; that was my first post on this thread.
The implication of my comment is that not only those drunk drivers who get into accidents are driving poorly. The same can be said for junior canopy pilots jumping over their experience/skill level.


penniless  (B License)

Jan 23, 2005, 10:08 AM
Post #211 of 295 (974 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
To those saying that there are plenty of people jumping small canopies and not dying, I believe that while this may be true, what has not been seen or reported is that the majority of those who get in over their head with small canopies have injured themselves in some way, often seriously enough to brake a bone. If the impact was hard enough to femur on, it was almost definitely hard enough to kill you (doesn't take much but a decent blow to the noodle).

So you have no actual facts either? You just assume, and go on from there. Has it occurred to you that "what has not been seen or reported" may not have been seen or reported because it didn't happen?

All this wiggling and weaseling just weakens your case.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 10:11 AM
Post #212 of 295 (972 views)
Shortcut
Re: [penniless] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Why should I have to find the evidence to support your proposal?

There is the root of the problem. Kallend felt the same way. He was wrong.

Why? Because this affects you as a skydiver, that's why.

Again, this isn't a 'us versus them' thing. It's a skydiver thing. You should care. You should want to make a positive difference. Don’t be so lazy, sit back and say, “Convince me.” You are just another skydiver, like all the other skydivers. You are not the one-man sounding board and any BSR proposals must pass your review. You are trying to put yourself in the position of having to be convinced to justify the BSR. Sorry, but that isn’t your position, that is USPA’s position. If you want to be in that position, run for the BOD.

If you want to change or stop the proposal, present some evidence. I don’t have to convince you that it is a good idea with charts an 8 x 10 glossy pictures.

If you were in a sinking boat, would you ask for proof that the boat will sink before getting in the life boat? If I was on a sinking boat with you, I wouldn’t stop from getting in the life boat to try and prove to you that the boat is really sinking. If you want to go down with the ship because no one will prove to you it is sinking, good luck to you. The point is, you are in the boat.

Quote:
I gather that our elected representatives on the USPA BOD are not rushing to implemement your proposal, so maybe they would like more information too.

It is being addressed and worked on.

Derek


(This post was edited by Hooknswoop on Jan 23, 2005, 10:13 AM)


nathaniel

Jan 23, 2005, 10:14 AM
Post #213 of 295 (970 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
How would a gray list prevent a jumper with 200 jumps that shoulodn't be flying a Stiletto 120 at 1.5:1 from hammering in?

It still be the jumper's responsibility to ensure his own safety. If he's at a DZ that already knows he's exceeding his capacity & tolerates this (ie, waiver style), then no amount of regulation will change this. In practical terms. DZO's are already allowed to waive many BSRs.

But DZs would have the information they need to make their own decisions. They could charge more, or insist on coached jumps, or just give the fellow a stern talking to. Who knows, but the DZ would be able to make the decision based on their best judgement. Some DZs might even not allow marked jumpers to fly, and it is reasonable, IMO, that the circumstances may mean that this is appropriate. For example, a small DZ might not have the training staff on hand to deal with it.

Call it USPA probation.

Quote:
An easier solution would be requiring the jumper to have on their license, the max WL they are allowed to jump.

It would be harder to forge a gray-list. than a specification on a license.

USPA license # could be correlated with name, and name could be correlated with gov't ID.

nathaniel


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 10:22 AM
Post #214 of 295 (967 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It still be the jumper's responsibility to ensure his own safety.

Then why have BSR's at all? Why not let jumpers do whatever they want?

Quote:
If he's at a DZ that already knows he's exceeding his capacity & tolerates this (ie, waiver style), then no amount of regulation will change this.

If they couldn't jump, then they wouldn't hammer in under a canopy they can't handle. The BSR would prevent their inury/fatality.

Quote:
DZO's are already allowed to waive many BSRs.

And this one could be waived/exceeded, whatever if the jumper was competent enough to do so.


Quote:
But DZs would have the information they need to make their own decisions. They could charge more, or insist on coached jumps, or just give the fellow a stern talking to. Who knows, but the DZ would be able to make the decision based on their best judgement. Some DZs might even not allow marked jumpers to fly, and it is reasonable, IMO, that the circumstances may mean that this is appropriate. For example, a small DZ might not have the training staff on hand to deal with it.

That is the current system, which isn't working. There are no guidelines, so it is done haphazardly from DZ to DZ. There are DZ's in the U.S that I would not have been allowed to jump at, even though I could safely fly my canopy. They had their rules and there are no exceptions.

Derek


nathaniel

Jan 23, 2005, 10:36 AM
Post #215 of 295 (965 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Then why have BSR's at all? Why not let jumpers do whatever they want?
It would facilitate greater efforts to shape a jumper's preferences. IMO it's fruitless to attempt to influence a population's actions without influencing their motives.

Quote:
If they couldn't jump, then they wouldn't hammer in under a canopy they can't handle. The BSR would prevent their inury/fatality.
Either the DZ permits the jumper to exceed his capacity or not. A DZO or S&TA could certify the jumper beyond his capacity even with the BSR. I have seen that BSRs are typically enforced at the discretion of the DZ--more or less as intended, I understand.

Quote:
And this one could be waived/exceeded, whatever if the jumper was competent enough to do so.
And the difference is in the assumptions made about the populations. The BSR introduces friction around the edges of the groups it defines. A probation system has friction, too, but it might not be so unreasonable as some algebraic concoction.

Quote:
That is the current system, which isn't working. There are no guidelines, so it is done haphazardly from DZ to DZ. There are DZ's in the U.S that I would not have been allowed to jump at, even though I could safely fly my canopy. They had their rules and there are no exceptions.

Suggested guidelines would have to accompany the introduction of probation, under any circumstance. For instance, it might be more reasonable to make the current BSR proposal terms under which probation jumpers would have to abide by virtue of their status.

Part of the problem, as you describe, seems to be that the system is too flexible right now. I think that one of the major problems with the BSR proposal is that it's too rigid, yes, including with the test-out provision.

A gray-list could be a step toward greater consistency, while not eliminating flexibility altogether.

nathaniel


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 10:42 AM
Post #216 of 295 (963 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

This is basically the system in place today, which doesn't work.

Derek


nathaniel

Jan 23, 2005, 10:43 AM
Post #217 of 295 (962 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

There is already a USPA probation list?

nathaniel


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 10:45 AM
Post #218 of 295 (959 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Sometimes DZ's call when they ground someone in case they try a different DZ. This only works when the DZ's are on speaking terms, which in a lot of cases, they aren't.

Your idea also doesn't include any training or education, which I think is vital to reducing injuries/fatalities.

Derek


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Jan 23, 2005, 10:54 AM
Post #219 of 295 (956 views)
Shortcut
Re: [penniless] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

I know of 3 major injuries requiring metal into the jumpers and another one that the jumper was lucky to walk away alive from, not one of those was ever reported to anyone.

Its great that everyone wants to know more info before they put in a rule but when DZ's are specificalyl not filling reports for injuries due to the screw ups at USPA HQ in the past your stat list will always be piss poor at best.


nathaniel

Jan 23, 2005, 10:54 AM
Post #220 of 295 (956 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Sometimes DZ's call when they ground someone in case they try a different DZ. This only works when the DZ's are on speaking terms, which in a lot of cases, they aren't.
It is exactly this part that changes. There's no more speaking terms to work out, just a published list of registered jumpers.

Training & education are not excluded from the idea. It could be part of the process, that to exit probationary status, or just by virtue of entering probationary status, additional training could be required.

nathaniel

now if you'll forgive me, I've a flight to catch.


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Jan 23, 2005, 10:59 AM
Post #221 of 295 (951 views)
Shortcut
Re: [penniless] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So you have no actual facts either?

I actually do. I've bore witness to many accidents that were never filed with the USPA over my 8 years in the sport. You have 6, I'd assume by now you've been exposed to the same amount of stuff that I have. I'd be extremely surprised if every accident you'd ever heard of or knew about was reported.

Quote:
You just assume, and go on from there.

No, I was actually there. I've also jumped at a number of dz's over the years and EVERY ONE of them didn't always file incident reports for injuries.

Quote:
Has it occurred to you that "what has not been seen or reported" may not have been seen or reported because it didn't happen?

Nope, I've seen it happen numerous times. But hey, what do I know, apparently you have a better handle on this than I.

Quote:
All this wiggling and weaseling just weakens your case

No wiggling and weaseling here. Just years of being around the sport. You can turn a blind eye if you want. Quite honestly you seem scared of proving your abilities. Guess that makes you one of the problem crowd, which in turn weakens your case (somehow I doubt you'll like me making assumptions about you as you have of I).

I'm all about discussion, I don't know if this is definitely the right way to go and I think discussing these things helps bring out flaws with the solutions.

Blues,
Ian


(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on Jan 23, 2005, 11:10 AM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 11:01 AM
Post #222 of 295 (949 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

The problem I see is your idea doesn't come into effect untila fter there is a problem. I think training and education for everyone, not just jumpers that end up on a list is the way to go.

I think preventing in the first place from people downsizing too fast before they become a problem is the way to go.

Derek


freakbrother  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 11:16 AM
Post #223 of 295 (935 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I know of 3 major injuries requiring metal into the jumpers and another one that the jumper was lucky to walk away alive from, not one of those was ever reported to anyone.

Its great that everyone wants to know more info before they put in a rule but when DZ's are specificalyl not filling reports for injuries due to the screw ups at USPA HQ in the past your stat list will always be piss poor at best.

Hard to hide fatalities!

Of the 5 jumpers I knew who died in landing accidents, 2 had over 2000 jumps, one had around 1500, another 900 and a WL of 1.2, and one with around 300 jumps was jumping a Sabre loaded at <1.0

Point being, anecdotal evidence can be found to support almost any position.


People have been calling for a data analysis since this BSR discussion started. I first recall seeing it sometime in mid 2003 and it must have started before that. That's plenty of time to go through the fatalities for a decade. Why won't the BSR supporters delve into the stats and come up with the information?

I think no action will be taken by this BOD unless strong supporting data are supplied along with the proposal.


Designer  (D 5771)

Jan 23, 2005, 11:20 AM
Post #224 of 295 (930 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

I have to ask myself simple questions.How comfortable to do feel with my level of canopy flight?I don't do hook turns anymore!(let everybody else if they want to "At their own risk")Personally,I have 100 jumps on my elliptical right now and "Don't feel totally Comfortable in all situations"Will not do demo's,night jump just recently didn't feel right or safe to me and landing off flield is an experience I would rather "Not Ever Have"(If I have a choice?)!How many still know how to do a PLF.Ever had to do one with a square canopy?Can you spot correctly from any skydiving altitude?Know where you should be "Away from others" in freefall and under canopy.These are just some of the questions I know not everybody can answer.Anymore suggestions?We will get there someday?rob


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jan 23, 2005, 11:20 AM
Post #225 of 295 (930 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

 
This is a general response to your posts regarding the 'gray list'.

Here's why that idea won't work. To build the list you're counting on the judgement of a DZO or S&TA. The trouble with that is that each individual will have a different idea of what/who is safe. The ptifalls are obvious; people not getting on the list who should be, and of course, the inverse. Why is this a problem? Were currently counting on the judgement of those poeple in regards to canopy selection, and it's working.

The concept of the BSR, while it still includes people making a judgement call, it's a group of people, all of whom were voted into their position by the population to be effected, who are making a decision based on an ideal that will work for the masses (those of lower skill/talent included).

This is all leaving out the other side of your coin, the utilization of this list. How often is the list updated? How does a jumper got off the list? How does a DZ access the current list? What separates a guy who 'needs a little guidance' from the 'crater to be'?

On the subject of DZ's not following a BSR, you will find that anytime a DZ knowingly breaks a BSR, it is a controlled and calculated risk. Not following the BSR's is leading toward negligence, and anytime you ignore a Basic SAFETY Reg, the element of liability comes into play. In an effort to reduce overall liablilty, and strengthen their waivers, DZ's will toe the (this) BSR line.

Here's an example. Bob, a DZO has a jumper at his Cessna DZ, John, who has 1000 jumps, most of them tandem/AFF video, and has been training to take the AFF cert course all summer. The satff admires this jumpers skill, and all the AFF I who are helping him prepare have only good things ot say. Now Bob needs a reserve side JM for an AFF lv 1, whom he is the main side for. He knows he could do the jump by himself, but the training has involved 2 JM's and he wants to keep it that way. In this case, Bob may go ahead and allow John to act as a JM. He has jumped with John for years, been filmed by him on countless jumps, and Bob will be present on the jump himself.

Now Bob has a new jumper, Dan, who has 123 jumps and is ready for a canopy XZY, even though the BSR says he's not. Would Bob give Dan the Ok for the XZY he wants to jump? Given Dan's experience, how long he's been around, and how much control Bob has after Dan leaves the plane?

This is why a BSR will hold. Anyone trying to get around it is inexperienced, and eager to move beyond what's been deemed reasonable. They represent the worst kind of risk, and therefore would not be allowed to break the BSR.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 11:21 AM
Post #226 of 295 (891 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakbrother] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Of the 5 jumpers I knew who died in landing accidents, 2 had over 2000 jumps, one had around 1500, another 900 and a WL of 1.2, and one with around 300 jumps was jumping a Sabre loaded at <1.0

And had the BSR been in place when they started, maybe with a better CC foundation and learning process, they wouldn't have died under a good canopy.

The point is, the BSR will affect everyone that starts skydiving after it is in place in a positive way.

There is no down side to better education and training and keeping jumpers from flying too small canopies.

Derek


pash

Jan 23, 2005, 11:30 AM
Post #227 of 295 (888 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakbrother] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

I have almost no business addressing your stance on this topic as you've probably been around since skydiving started. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from and that what I'm saying is still respectful.

Quote:
Why won't the BSR supporters delve into the stats and come up with the information?

From my point of view, I have valued EVERY bit of training and education offered to me. I think what the proponents are saying is that, for people like me, this would offer better education from the start and, therefore, it would be likely that fewer injuries and fatalities would occur to me over the years because my skydiving house would have been built on a more solid foundation.

It's clear to me that there will continue to be people opposed to "the system" and all the willy-nilly rules and regulations of "the man" but my odds of surviving will be better for the BSR. As for the others, they'll be the ones to prove, in their own way, that a BSR won't stop every fatality or injury.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 11:32 AM
Post #228 of 295 (884 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakbrother] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Why won't the BSR supporters delve into the stats and come up with the information?

Maybe you missed when USPA took a stand against mandatory incident reporting or leaked confidential incident information to the prosicution on a case against a DZ. That has ensured that the stastics don't and will not exist.

Derek


freakbrother  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 11:44 AM
Post #229 of 295 (882 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Why won't the BSR supporters delve into the stats and come up with the information?

Maybe you missed when USPA took a stand against mandatory incident reporting or leaked confidential incident information to the prosicution on a case against a DZ. That has ensured that the stastics don't and will not exist.

Derek

I don't belive any fatalities have been covered up. The data are available.

What % of fatalities over the last few years involved inexperienced jumpers under high WL?

USPA has data on jump numbers from renewals. What % of <100 jump members died, what % of 100 to 200, 200 to 300, etc. Then you could see if the <500 jump folks are really the ones most in need of saving.

And it IS the job of those who want a new rule to do this.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 11:48 AM
Post #230 of 295 (880 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakbrother] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I don't belive any fatalities have been covered up. The data are available.

Not, just fatalities, incidents, which includes injuries and fatalities.

There have been a lot of injuries in the past 10 years from people flying canopies they shouldn't be and from a lack of education and training.

Quote:
Then you could see if the <500 jump folks are really the ones most in need of saving.

I've said it several times in the last 2 hours, if this BSR had been in place when they started jumping, it would have made a difference. It is very likely that some of those fatalities wouldn't have happened if those jumpers had a solid base of understaning to build off of.

Again, this BSR would affect every jumper in a posotive manner that starts jumping after it is in place. They would get the training has been missing ever since canopy performance took sucha huge step foward in the early 90's.

Quote:
And it IS the job of those who want a new rule to do this.

No, it is the job of every skydiver to make things better and reduce injuries and fatalities, that includes you. What are you doing to reduce injuries and fatalities?

Derek


(This post was edited by Hooknswoop on Jan 23, 2005, 11:50 AM)


freakbrother  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 1:34 PM
Post #231 of 295 (866 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:

No, it is the job of every skydiver to make things better and reduce injuries and fatalities, that includes you. What are you doing to reduce injuries and fatalities?

Derek

Right now I'm helping you to eliminate the weak spots in your BSR proposal by bringing them to your attention before the BOD does.


Ron

Jan 23, 2005, 1:57 PM
Post #232 of 295 (859 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pash] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Every counter point seems to revolve around philosophy and money. I quite like the philosophy of the leaders in this sport and I know they don't do it for the money.

YOU get to have your fast-ass canopy once you demonstrate you can fly it.

This is one thing I don't get. You can fly whatever you want once you prove it....

If you can do it then you will BE special ,and it will be proven beyond any doubt.

You can fly that tiny canopy since you earned it.

It does not get any bette than that.

I think many who oppose this are afraid they are not all they think they are. And they are afraid they will just be normal and not special.

Not all, but I think it is a fear of some.


Ron

Jan 23, 2005, 1:59 PM
Post #233 of 295 (858 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The minimum deployment BSR says Ds can open at 2000, but few do so as a matter of practice, wouldn't you agree? And lowtimers like me open at 3500 or more even if 3000 is the line.

Great example....When the BSR came out people were pulling below 2 grand all the time. THATS WHY THERE WAS A BSR.

Now its not cool to pull low. When I started people still thought it was cool to pull low. Over the past 10 years that has changed. The focus on saftey is one reason.

A WL BSR might do the same thing....Take away the cool from high WL's.

In reply to:
That BSR is fairly permissive for normal practices. The 1.x for > x00 jumps chart is not. It would be the equilivent of setting As to 4000ft. Bs&Cs to 3000.

A's can't open where "D"s can


(This post was edited by Ron on Jan 23, 2005, 2:01 PM)


Ron

Jan 23, 2005, 2:15 PM
Post #234 of 295 (850 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How about a gray-list.

Add MORE politics?

This shows you have not been to many DZ's yet.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Jan 23, 2005, 3:02 PM
Post #235 of 295 (839 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakbrother] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

 So what are the "weak" spots in the proposal that you see????........Lets see them....

As for the people asking for "evidence" that a problem exists before you think a BSR is necessary.

I think we've all witnessed enough REPEATED incidents on our own DZ's to realise that there is a definite problem.....each of our DZ's are in effect a small VALID sample of all the DZ's in the country......so I think we can quite safely say the problem is universal.....even though concrete figures arn't available.....

For every jumper who hammers in and gets carted off to hospital or the morgue, there would be another 10 who bounced off the ground hard and been lucky to walk away with lumps and bruises and a slightly different attitude to the whole deal.....I've drunk a fair bit of their beer over the years.......

In fact here's a statement that'll generate a few squeals I bet.....but I'll make it anyway......

It would be very rare to find ANYONE who jumps a pocket rocket who didn't blow at least one landing, before they started showing a bit more respect towards its potential to injure them......they've learnt a lesson early on....

Thats usually what it takes.....a bit of a shakeup..... that they didn't suffer any major injury would be due more to good luck than skill......

I've always been one who's managed to walk away......but I've hit hard on a number of jumps, (but not while swooping.....I'm a bit more cautious after a few test jumps in the early days of ZP canopies).........

Be an interesting little exercise to see how many in this discussion could have used a bit more education from the start......although we understand a hell of a lot more about the problem than we did even 10 years ago....making the failure to act on it even more inexcusable........we really don't need more data......we need solutions.....

But I'm starting to get tired of this argument....I'm convinced already.......don't feel like justifying my position any more to blind sceptics....


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 3:23 PM
Post #236 of 295 (831 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakbrother] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Right now I'm helping you to eliminate the weak spots in your BSR proposal by bringing them to your attention before the BOD does.

You think you are helping. You are being a pain in the ass. You want to help? Come up with ideas, that is a lot harder than sitting back and trashing others. It is very presumptious of you to think you can just sit back, point out what you think is wrong, tell us to fix it, while you go back to what you are doing. You want in on this? Roll up your sleeves and dive right in. Don't sit on the outside and try to tell us what is wrong.

I know a record holding pilot. He has been flying a long time and built his own record setting airplane. His biggest pet peeve is when he is at an airshow, workig on the plane to get ready for a record attempt and someone will walk up and say, "Why don't you just_________." This person thinks that they can walk up and in 15 seconds, they can solve an issue that he has been working on for years. And then they shove anothe bite of hot dog into their mouth and wander off to the next airplane, to solve another difficult problem in record time. They think they are helping too. They aren't. They are just being aggrevating as hell.

Helping takes real effort. Saying, "Why don't you just__________." doesn't take any efort at all.

You are in the sinking boat. Don't sit there and tell someone they are lowering the life boat wrong. Grab a line.

Derek


(This post was edited by Hooknswoop on Jan 23, 2005, 3:24 PM)


penniless  (B License)

Jan 23, 2005, 3:32 PM
Post #237 of 295 (828 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Right now I'm helping you to eliminate the weak spots in your BSR proposal by bringing them to your attention before the BOD does.

You think you are helping. You are being a pain in the ass. You want to help? Come up with ideas, that is a lot harder than sitting back and trashing others. It is very presumptious of you to think you can just sit back, point out what you think is wrong, tell us to fix it, while you go back to what you are doing. You want in on this? Roll up your sleeves and dive right in. Don't sit on the outside and try to tell us what is wrong.

I know a record holding pilot. He has been flying a long time and built his own record setting airplane. His biggest pet peeve is when he is at an airshow, workig on the plane to get ready for a record attempt and someone will walk up and say, "Why don't you just_________." This person thinks that they can walk up and in 15 seconds, they can solve an issue that he has been working on for years. And then they shove anothe bite of hot dog into their mouth and wander off to the next airplane, to solve another difficult problem in record time. They think they are helping too. They aren't. They are just being aggrevating as hell.

Helping takes real effort. Saying, "Why don't you just__________." doesn't take any efort at all.

You are in the sinking boat. Don't sit there and tell someone they are lowering the life boat wrong. Grab a line.

Derek

You are being a bit overdramatic here. No boat is sinking. In terms of fatalities overall, currently they are lower per skydiver than they have ever been. Barry Brummit's old fatalities page had a graph that shows this very clearly. I don't think the successor page has it, but the numbers are still available.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Jan 23, 2005, 3:34 PM
Post #238 of 295 (825 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

 Well said Hooky.......

I think there's more than a few on this board who are just wind up merchants (WUMS) looking for a bite.....I'm tired of them so I've almost given up responding.......got better things to do.....


penniless  (B License)

Jan 23, 2005, 3:35 PM
Post #239 of 295 (824 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
So you have no actual facts either?

I actually do. I've bore witness to many accidents that were never filed with the USPA over my 8 years in the sport. You have 6, I'd assume by now you've been exposed to the same amount of stuff that I have. I'd be extremely surprised if every accident you'd ever heard of or knew about was reported.

Quote:
You just assume, and go on from there.

No, I was actually there. I've also jumped at a number of dz's over the years and EVERY ONE of them didn't always file incident reports for injuries.

If you were there and saw them, then they weren't unseen and unreported, were they?


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 3:41 PM
Post #240 of 295 (821 views)
Shortcut
Re: [penniless] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
No boat is sinking.

Um, right, it's a metaphor.

Quote:
In terms of fatalities overall, currently they are lower per skydiver than they have ever been.

So you are back to the ‘their is no problem’ argument?

Injuries and fatalities from flying perfectly good canopies into the ground is on the rise. If you don’t see that over 6 years and 60/jumps a year, you should go out to the DZ more often. When I was skydiving, rarely missed a weekend, and when I was full time, I rarely missed a day at the DZ. Injuries and fatalities from perfectly good canopies is on the rise. A lot of skydivers that have been around a while see it. There are no statistics to prove it, because of USPA, but there are increasing.

We are way beyond whether or not there is a problem.

Again, you want to help? Help. Don’t just sit there and say, “Why don’t you just
_______________.”

Derek


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 3:45 PM
Post #241 of 295 (827 views)
Shortcut
Re: [penniless] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If you were there and saw them, then they weren't unseen and unreported, were they?

You really are arguing just to argue.

Stop helping.

Derek


pash

Jan 23, 2005, 4:45 PM
Post #242 of 295 (816 views)
Shortcut
Re: [penniless] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If you were there and saw them, then they weren't unseen and unreported, were they?

You've got a tremendous number of skydives when compared to me. Have you ever seen an incident? Have you personally reported every one you've seen. I haven't and I've seen people break their lets already.

I'm a little baby in this sport that plans on looking out for himself and others because I believe in personal accountability and responsibility. I have no problem skydiving in the confines of a BSR. I'm up to it because I have the guts to let go just like you have to have at every exit. I'm convinced that the people here who have been in the sport 24 more years than you have been actually have better PERSPECTIVE. Bring the BSR on. PLEASE.

If you doubt the benefits of a BSR, just let some stupid ass like myself try to land and say "oh shit!!" as you're trying to pick up your canopy on the LZ. I just didn"t want any "personal freedoms" taken from me. So sorry.


nathaniel

Jan 23, 2005, 5:10 PM
Post #243 of 295 (812 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
You really are arguing just to argue.

It's not productive to go dismiss alternate viewpoints because you are not fond of them. That's a fallacy in and of itself. Regardless of experience, we should all recognize this.

Truly good ideas are forged and tempered by the fires of debate. Not extinguished.

nathaniel


nathaniel

Jan 23, 2005, 5:43 PM
Post #244 of 295 (806 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The trouble with that is that each individual will have a different idea of what/who is safe. The ptifalls are obvious; people not getting on the list who should be, and of course, the inverse.
Sure, but those will be factors in any test-out scenario in the WL BSR proposal. They are, I contend, comparable between the two. And if it's a really big deal, there could be an arbitration policy. Both for WL BSR proposal test-outs and for contestation of probation.

In all cases, members that abuse the system should be sanctioned, just like the existing frameworks.

Example of arbitration policy:
1) both parties agree not to sue & abide by the decision of the appointed arbitrators
2) complainant puts up $50
3) USPA selects 2 or 3 uninvolved S&TAs or DZO's from other parts of the country to be the arbitration board
4) arbitrators evaluate the arguments & render judgement, judgement could include forcing the defendant to repay the arbitration fee to the complainant
5) arbitrators split the money amongst themselves, USPA keeps $5 to cover the cost of the paperwork & recordskeeping

Simple arbitration systems like this have worked well in other industries. Thinking big, I bet something like this might even have a place in the standard waiver, in which I suspect it may be already for some DZs. Having an arbitration body filled out with (cough, responsible) jumpers should make the process of deciding fact from fiction a bit more efficient.

Quote:
The concept of the BSR, while it still includes people making a judgement call, it's a group of people, all of whom were voted into their position by the population to be effected, who are making a decision based on an ideal that will work for the masses (those of lower skill/talent included).
I contend that by the method used--jump numbers and wing loads--it's essentially impossible for it to be an ideal, and that in fact there's a greater inefficiency that the proponents would admit. Despite their best intentions & efforts.

I think the measure would be improved by cutting out that bit. I think that judgement, as all the posters we have on this board have demonstrated, is a little too elusive to be effectively put into written form, although not too elusive to be practiced & observed.

Quote:
This is all leaving out the other side of your coin, the utilization of this list. How often is the list updated?
Lists are easy to keep, it could be just a phone call, or a website. I'd run a website myself, if you like. Tho I don't think it would carry much weight without endorsement--I should think many toes would get stepped on without the appropriate level of buy-in.

Quote:
How does a jumper got off the list?
I'm open to ideas. The two that I've proposed so far are
1) automatic expiry
2) automatic expiry with conditions

Quote:
How does a DZ access the current list?
If it was a website, then with a web browser. Maybe with a daily fax. Or a telephone call. Or perhaps many ways. Circulars might start to get expensive, but if there was enough buy-in the cost of a circular could likely be borne. Websites, on the other hand, are cheap. The USPA has already got one.

Quote:
What separates a guy who 'needs a little guidance' from the 'crater to be'?
That's a particularly difficult question that a BSR can't solve. It's a judgement call, as it seems all of us have said at one point or another. It's clear in some cases, and less so in others.

I think one advantage that a gray-list holds over a whitelist (ie, the test-out condition of today's most popular rendition of the WL BSR) is that when a DZO or S&TA calls someone out, they would make a one-way assertion that the jumper is behaving dangerously. I think it might provide a harder target for legal action, and thus be easier for a DZO or S&TA to take action without fear of legal consequences should that the jumper involved should manage to hurt himself after the listing.

Some people have raised concern that a DZO or S&TA would be hesitant to whitelist a jumper for fear of adverse consequences if the jumper were to subsequently injure himself.

nathaniel


freakbrother  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 6:36 PM
Post #245 of 295 (794 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Right now I'm helping you to eliminate the weak spots in your BSR proposal by bringing them to your attention before the BOD does.

You think you are helping. You are being a pain in the ass.

I draw you attention to this post from a year or so back:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=534587#534587

and compare it with Bill's version of the proposed BSR iteration in post #84 of this thread.

It appears that Billvon was and still is prepared to listen to others who have issues, and adjust to improve, while you just call names on those who disagree with you. I doubt your tactic will work on the BOD, but good luck.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 23, 2005, 8:29 PM
Post #246 of 295 (787 views)
Shortcut
Re: [parachutist] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>A more realistic analogy to driving would be: You are saying that it's
> ok to tailgate, as long as they are taught how to dodge the other
> car's bumper at last minute.

No, I am not saying that.

But let's look at your driving analogy. Let's say you are teaching your son to drive, and he asks you what to do if a car in front of him locks up his brakes and he thinks he's going to collide with it. Would you:

1. Tell him to plow into the car at full speed and hope the airbags work (because high performance turns at highway speeds are dangerous) or

2. Tell him how to best avoid the impact (i.e. use brakes/steering to mitigate or eliminate the collision)

I think any reasonable teacher would give them answer 2, along with information on how to avoid those situations to begin with. The best drivers know how to avoid dangerous situations AND know how to handle them when they do occur (which they do, even to cautious drivers.)

>Something that I think you do not realize, because you have about
> 4k jumps under your belt, is that low-timers have not trained their
> brains to interpret data that is incoming from their senses yet (air
> speed felt on the skin, G's felt through the leg straps, ability to
> judge ground speed and altitude accurately via vision).

Believe me, while I now find it easier to fly a canopy, it didn't come easily. I put myself in a wheelchair at about jump 150 because I landed on a windy day next to a treeline, and then tried to overcontrol the canopy after it lost airspeed. And that was on a PD190. The reason I am still skydiving today is that that didn't happen under a 120.

>So while you can teach them the theory of how to do safe low turns,
> you can not really get the knowledge into their heads until they
> have plenty of actual practice.

I agree! So give them plenty of actual practice.


(This post was edited by billvon on Jan 23, 2005, 9:18 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 23, 2005, 8:30 PM
Post #247 of 295 (787 views)
Shortcut
Re: [penniless] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
If you feel a study is needed to determine something needs to be done and done soon, you are not paying attention.

2003 50% of fatalities in the US were under good canopies.
2004 40% of fatalities in the us were under good canopies.

How many of them would have been affected by the proposal? Were they ALL inexperienced people with high WL? THAT is the critical question.

I'll tell you what, I came up with the overall percentages, how about you come up with a break down of experience level. You should get total jump numbers, jumps on canopy involved, total time in sport and time jumping canopy involved.

Let us know what you find.

Sparky


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 23, 2005, 8:52 PM
Post #248 of 295 (784 views)
Shortcut
Re: [penniless] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>How many of them would have been affected by the proposal?

Between 2001 and 2002, 13 people would have likely been saved by the above-mentioned proposal; that would have been a 19% decrease in fatalities. I did not consider serious injuries since they are almost never reported to USPA. See here for supporting data.


mattjw916  (D License)

Jan 23, 2005, 9:11 PM
Post #249 of 295 (778 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Anyone else think this thread has reached it's logical conclusion yet... we might as well debate gun control and abortion while we are at it.

How about closing arguments limited to 100 words each.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 23, 2005, 9:17 PM
Post #250 of 295 (776 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>How about a gray-list.

Well:

1. How would you do this? We can't even get DZ's to send in incident reports on near-fatalities with any regularity; what incentive would they have to fill out a far less important piece of paper and mail it off? I know I had better things to do (like filling out logbooks, completing student paperwork, changing radio batteries etc) at the end of the day when I was in charge of student training at Brown.

2. Let's say they do that. How do they check? Do they call USPA every time a new jumper registers at their DZ? What if a DZ decides to operate on sunday when USPA is closed? Do we require all DZ's have internet access so they can access the records on-line? Or do we just say that new jumpers can't jump on weekends?

3. Let's say we do all that. We pass two new BSR's that say "all DZ's must enter incident reports concerning jumpers that have landing problems within 30 days or lose your group membership" and "all DZ's must check with USPA before allowing any new jumper to jump at their DZ or lose their membership." (Which is what you'd have to do.) So now the S+TA finds out that Joe Swooper is on the list, and goes to talk to him.

"So Joe, you had a few problems at your old DZ with your landings, huh?"

"Yeah, but I've made a lot of jumps since then, and got some training, and I'm really good now."

"Oh, OK."

Joe jumps and crashes and burns under his VX98.

"Hey, you said you were better now!"

"Get off my back! You're just like those other guys at XYZ DZ. I'm fine! You don't understand swooping anyway because you jump a big Nitro 108."

And we're right back where we started (but with lots more paperwork to do.)

I like the idea of a 'master list' to keep an eye on people, but I don't see how it would do much good. The people immune to advice will remain immune to advice at a new DZ no matter what list they're on unless they are forced to change. That force can come in the form of a broken femur (or worse), an S+TA who grounds him, a local wing loading rule, or a BSR that is enforced by the DZO. I think the BSR is the most consistent, effective and fair way to do it - because it will get them the training they need instead of a grounding.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 23, 2005, 9:26 PM
Post #251 of 295 (1291 views)
Shortcut
Re: [penniless] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
So you have no actual facts either?

I actually do. I've bore witness to many accidents that were never filed with the USPA over my 8 years in the sport. You have 6, I'd assume by now you've been exposed to the same amount of stuff that I have. I'd be extremely surprised if every accident you'd ever heard of or knew about was reported.

Quote:
You just assume, and go on from there.

No, I was actually there. I've also jumped at a number of dz's over the years and EVERY ONE of them didn't always file incident reports for injuries.

If you were there and saw them, then they weren't unseen and unreported, were they?

You are busting everyone ass because you say there is not data to support it. Then you come up with statements like this. Thats not data, thats just you standing around watching again.
Can you give me the dates, times, age, gender, canopy type, experience and cause of death on these "No, I was actually there" incidents you are so proud of.

I can give you chapter and verse on 11 fatalities that I did the investigation. I can show you pictures of the scene and see if you can keep your dinner down. And you have the gaul to say there is no data to support this program.

Your behavior reminds me of a spoiled brat stomping her feet and yelling "me, me, me".

Bill, Derek, and the others that have and are putting so much time and effort into this thing, I wish you luck. It like talking with Moe, Larry and Curly.

Sparky


nathaniel

Jan 23, 2005, 10:24 PM
Post #252 of 295 (1284 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
How would you do this? We can't even get DZ's to send in incident reports on near-fatalities with any regularity; what incentive would they have to fill out a far less important piece of paper and mail it off?
You'd make it as painless as possible. Electronic, if electronic would be less painful than paper. But you're right, it wouldn't work without DZO's & S&TA's participation. They'd have to buy in to the value of the system. Just like the other rules.

Quote:
2. Let's say they do that. How do they check? Do they call USPA every time a new jumper registers at their DZ? What if a DZ decides to operate on sunday when USPA is closed? Do we require all DZ's have internet access so they can access the records on-line? Or do we just say that new jumpers can't jump on weekends?
They could print a list at the beginning of the day or weekend, fax machine or computer printout, or circular. Computer printout would be cheapest to set up for the list operator, it could be just a website or an email mailing list. It could be a CGI script for interactive queries...how often do new, already licensed, jumpers show up at typical DZs? I'm guessing on the order of a dozen or two tops per day at the busiest DZs on the weekends, with the exception of season-openers & special events. Season openers & special events typically require special planning, I understand.

Under the most ideal circumstance, manifest software already deployed could be modified to support automatic update and cross reference. DZs running without specialized software could update their lists less often, or cross-reference less often. As long as it happened with reasonable frequency (ie, significantly less than the average "sentence"), most of the value would remain.

It will never be instantaneous to get on the list, or for distributed lists to be updated. The same inefficiencies apply to whitelists. There will necessarily be a gap between when a jumper is declared & when the declaration takes effect, even if it's just the time it takes for the S&TA to run to the nearest phone / PC & submit the new information. As long as the distributed lists are updated regularly, and the interval of probation is significantly greater than the distribution interval, most of the value will remain. If the effective dates of the probation "sentences" are distributed along with the USPA lic #s, at least it will cut off the tail end. It would have to be more timely than the publication of Parachutist, that's for sure, but it wouldn't require typesetting or fancy graphics.

Quote:
some narrative
I'm not sure what the point of that is...by comparison, a jumper who's made it onto a whitelist is still human & falliable. What's the distinction?

Under the scenario that training is a way to get off the gray-list, then the gray list would be updated when the instructor submits evidence that the jumper has passed the course. As long as the jumper's name appears on a current gray-list, he's still "officially" gray-listed. The jumper is cleared when his name is removed from the list. Just like there's a delay before your printed license gets sent to you, although there's some flexibility by waving around your signed off test card.

Speaking of which, part of probation could be a reduced license stature. D& C license reduced to B or A, and resulting with either re-testing to the orginal license or expiration of the penalty.

Quote:
I don't see how it would do much good

I think, in a way, dr penniless was onto something when he remarked about rules vs exceptions. There are plenty of people who would push the limits with the knowledge of the risks they undertake. And then there are people that take risks that attract your intercession. Classifying everybody into the clueless category is counterproductive; being an adult and / or citizen should be enough to bring a person this much respect. But the actions that a jumper chooses may cause us to revisit our generous assessment of them.

nathaniel


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 23, 2005, 11:00 PM
Post #253 of 295 (1279 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

OK, let's skip the implementation details. I think it would be difficult and somewhat expensive at best, but presumably if we think it's important we can raise dues sufficiently to cover the expense, or force DZ's to pay for it by threatening a boycott or whatever.

But the original question remains - what does the gray list do for the jumper? From his perspective, it just gets him bitched at more often. In other words, more S+TA's will not understand their canopy skills (in their opinion.) From the perspective of the S+TA, all he knows is that someone, somewhere didn't like how this guy landed. He has no idea what kind of canopy he was jumping, how many jumps he's made since, what sort of training he's gotten, whether he has to dig out his swoops or just doesn't clear his airspace etc. So it's back to "Hey, you better keep your nose clean; you're on this list!" "Yeah, whatever."

The only things that will keep jumpers alive under highly loaded canopy are training, experience and education. I don't see the 'gray list' getting any of these things to problem jumpers. The gray list would seem to promote nagging, not education. And nagging doesn't work, from personal experience.


Liemberg  (Student)

Jan 24, 2005, 2:16 AM
Post #254 of 295 (1273 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Classifying everybody into the clueless category is counterproductive; being an adult and / or citizen should be enough to bring a person this much respect.

You are so wrong there, it is almost funny.

Classifying everybody into the clueless category (until they prove otherwise) is what I do all the time when I allow people to jump at my DZ.

An example? Without at least an A-license EVERYBODY goes to the Student landing area (= away from the public / 500 meters walk back to the hangar), without a B-license visiting jumpers are 'kindly requested' to land there until we evaluated their canopy skills. And yes, when push comes to shove, I have final saying on who is to land in the student area and who is allowed near the hangar. At my place there's a guy who is approaching 200 jumps, has a 1:1,1 loaded rectangular ZP and is - for the time being - 'banned' from landing near the hangar, he MUST land in the student field...

If landing a canopy had to do with debating skills I would not have a problem to recognize the likes of you as adult citizens who are entitled to their opinion. However, since I'm the one that calls the ambulance, talks to the media and phones the next of kin I reserve the right to be judgmental towards every new face that walks in my door.
A 'graylist' sounds like a complicated way to create more 'red tape' than what I'm already plagued with, not a solution to a real world problem.
Taking away some of your "constitutional rights" is a lot simpler. Now you just go and blame others that it has come this far, then show somebody in charge that you'll be fine under 'one level smaller than BSR allows'... You may even pick your own evaluator.

If Bill doesn't want to sign, ask Brian...
(Better yet, ask the instructors at your own DZ; they are used to signing for other peoples proficiency)

This would however involve actual parachute jumps where you showed your skill with a parachute that falls within the (proposed) BSR rules. Once you have the coveted signature, you move on to the next level...

But alas, your ability to quote philosophers wont be of much help there...
edit: Spelling! & still not sure... Smile


(This post was edited by Liemberg on Jan 24, 2005, 2:17 AM)


cbain  (D 25839)

Jan 24, 2005, 5:25 AM
Post #255 of 295 (1259 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Of the 5 jumpers I knew who died in landing accidents, 2 had over 2000 jumps, one had around 1500, another 900 and a WL of 1.2, and one with around 300 jumps was jumping a Sabre loaded at <1.0

And had the BSR been in place when they started, maybe with a better CC foundation and learning process, they wouldn't have died under a good canopy.

The point is, the BSR will affect everyone that starts skydiving after it is in place in a positive way.

There is no down side to better education and training and keeping jumpers from flying too small canopies.

Derek

I agree better education and training may have prevented the incidents in question. But under the current proposal being debated wouldn't education and training only be required if someone wanted to exceed the WL restriction?

So Joe Crater could scim along the BSR going from 1.1 to 1.2 to 1.3 and so on and then at x00 jumps suddenly no more restriction and goes to 2.0. But he still never recieved any additional training or education to prepare him for that.

I'm not sure how to correct this flaw but how about this:

At my job I have to show that I'm willing to continously keep learning by taking courses or reading books, etc. How about a required canopy control course prior to getting the next lisence level B, C or D?

Maybe that could be used with a BSR following lisence levels. So they couldn't move up to a higher WL by just getting the next lisence but they'd have to take a course too. I know that there are accuracy requirements and such for each lisence but maybe that's not enough. I know people would complain about having to spend money on coaching but in order to progress they would have to be willing to shell it out and show they are willing to keep learning. Then that way even if they are right below the BSR requirement then the coaches could still see them and evauluate them and it might make a difference. Because the current proposal doesn't require training unless you want to exceed the BSR. I'm not exceeding the BSR but I took a canopy course this year because I felt I needed it. This would get training to everyone no matter their WL.

Christina


tspillers  (D 21601)

Jan 24, 2005, 5:32 AM
Post #256 of 295 (1259 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Liemberg] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

I will add some more concerns about the 'grey list'. As another DZO, such a list would be bad in my opinion. If someone was on the list, I let them jump at my DZ, and someting happened.......I can see the lawsuits now. So I would just not let anyone on the list jump.

Now let's look at someone who get's in here and argues (with good intentions or not) with these more experienced people and one of them isn't as professional as they should be and decides to put them on the list...... Now, they aren't jumping because they pissed someone off away from the DZ.

I am sorry, but I see more harm than good from such a list. I am in contact with area DZ's and we let each other know if there is someone we think should be watched. It works quite well.

Todd


tspillers  (D 21601)

Jan 24, 2005, 5:36 AM
Post #257 of 295 (1258 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cbain] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

I like the idea of license skills with each license. Currently, I don't think we have enough "qualified" canopy coaches out there. I think we have some good canopy pilots, but that doesn't mean they can teach what needs to be taught. I would like to see a better program for this as well, but one uphill battle at a time.

Todd


cbain  (D 25839)

Jan 24, 2005, 5:52 AM
Post #258 of 295 (1250 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I like the idea of license skills with each license. Currently, I don't think we have enough "qualified" canopy coaches out there. I think we have some good canopy pilots, but that doesn't mean they can teach what needs to be taught. I would like to see a better program for this as well, but one uphill battle at a time.

Todd

But if there aren't enough "qualified" canopy coaches out there, then who has the skills to judge who should test out of the WL BSR? Maybe a canopy coach rating is needed before implementing the BSR (with or without the additional required training I was talking about).

Christina


Ron

Jan 24, 2005, 5:54 AM
Post #259 of 295 (1250 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

This is what gets me...

We have a bunch of smart but very young in the sport people saying that the older, much more experienced don't have a clue.

I find that funny.

Also for those that claim that a WL to jump number chart does not work. Then why is the Pull altitude BSR set on licenses? It is really set on jump numbers since there is not training to teach you how to pull low. Only EXPERIENCE. And that experience comes with jump numbers.

For those that claim that we have no hard data....Right. We don't since the USPA has shown to be very bad when they have that data, and no one wants to give them that data. We see it on here as well..People get hurt and they don't want it broadcast. They don't waht their egos to be hurt.

But I ask this...For those that think that we don't have enough data to make a good choice....Do you have a hook knife? If so, why? Statistics show that you will never need one. Other accidents show that even if you had one most will never use it. The number of jumps made where a hook knife is not needed FAR outweigh the ones where they were needed. Also the number of jumps where they were needed and actually used are even smaller.

So why do you carry something that you really don't need? And most likley will not use if you needed it? Where are you facts to prove you need it?

If you don't have the facts, maybe you should just get rid of the hook knife.

Oh, and lets talk about helmets....The number of jumps made where a helmet is needed are so much smaller than the number where they are needed. Why do you wear a helmet?

You guys just need to accept that there are no hard numbers and there will never be hard numbers (Unless the Government steps in). You also have to just accept that BSR's have always been written by those that know more about the sport and are based on trends.

And the BSR's also work.

These folks need to get over thier ego issues and accept that they don't know what they don't know. And that the others that have been in the sport for a bunch of years DO know more than them about the sport.


(This post was edited by Ron on Jan 24, 2005, 5:59 AM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 24, 2005, 6:42 AM
Post #260 of 295 (1238 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cbain] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I agree better education and training may have prevented the incidents in question. But under the current proposal being debated wouldn't education and training only be required if someone wanted to exceed the WL restriction?

No, my proposal includes mandatory education/training for each license level.

Derek


jerryzflies  (A License)

Jan 24, 2005, 7:28 AM
Post #261 of 295 (1229 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I agree better education and training may have prevented the incidents in question. But under the current proposal being debated wouldn't education and training only be required if someone wanted to exceed the WL restriction?

No, my proposal includes mandatory education/training for each license level.

Derek

Are we discussing your proposal, Bill's proposal, Ron's proposal (if he has one), Brian's WNE chart, or general principles?

It would be very handy to know exactly what we are discussing. Would probably save a lot of griping.


Designer  (D 5771)

Jan 24, 2005, 7:47 AM
Post #262 of 295 (1218 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Well stated!The object of course is to get everybody reading from the same page(list or not?)First,(tried this already with little success)Get all teaching Canopy courses to come up with "universal program".Clear it through "All the proper People and channels"!Get it approved and into action.9 years is a long time to wait for nothing yet.Let's go people!rob


penniless  (B License)

Jan 24, 2005, 7:48 AM
Post #263 of 295 (1218 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>How many of them would have been affected by the proposal?

Between 2001 and 2002, 13 people would have likely been saved by the above-mentioned proposal; that would have been a 19% decrease in fatalities. I did not consider serious injuries since they are almost never reported to USPA. See here for supporting data.

Thank you. Smile

Why did it have to be like pulling teeth to get someone to post this information?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 24, 2005, 8:10 AM
Post #264 of 295 (1212 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cbain] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>Maybe a canopy coach rating is needed before implementing the BSR . . .

A canopy coach rating was part of our proposal for implementing the wingloading BSR. At first it would be administered by S+TA's, then by canopy coaches (an extension of the USPA coach rating) once they became rated.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 24, 2005, 8:14 AM
Post #265 of 295 (1211 views)
Shortcut
Re: [penniless] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>Why did it have to be like pulling teeth to get someone to post this information?

Because (for me) it _was_ like pulling teeth to get that information to begin with! There isn't even solid USPA data on fatalities in terms of wing loading and previous training; often such things are not reported. So I had to go to DZ.com and rec.skydiving to try to fill in the blanks.

I don't know if the fatalities database here will become comprehensive or not. But if it does, it will make it easier to generate this sort of data in the future.


cbain  (D 25839)

Jan 24, 2005, 9:35 AM
Post #266 of 295 (1195 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Maybe a canopy coach rating is needed before implementing the BSR . . .

A canopy coach rating was part of our proposal for implementing the wingloading BSR. At first it would be administered by S+TA's, then by canopy coaches (an extension of the USPA coach rating) once they became rated.

That's good and it's good that Hooknswoop said that canopy coaching was part of his proposal for each lisence too but I didn't know that before now. Maybe part of the resistance is because nobody know's what we're talking about for sure. We've seen Brian Germains chart and we've seen bits and pieces of others. But maybe all of the ideas needs to be put into one proposal. Then everyone can make comments suggestions etc on that and we can get that proposal in the best form possible incorporating input from all sources. Even though this has been talked about and debated for years there doesn't appear to be any consistancy even between those that are recommending the BSR.

I also saw a post were someone said that everyone with less experience should just sit down and shut up and let the more experienced people figure it out because they know more. While I agree that wisdom comes with experience and I do listen to those in the sport and with more jumps than me. But that's like scolding a child for asking questions just because they don't understand. It is very difficult raising a "child" in skydiving and there are some that are always going to "rebel." But patience and explaining things fully in terms they understand may help (or you kick 'em out of the house when they turn 16/18/etc). Yes, a child has to live by the rules of the parents but part of growing up is questioning those rules as well.

Can a BSR be passed something like a proposition does for laws? In other words a proposition is written in the best form and then it's put up to the population for a vote. Isn't that the way self governing societies do it? (I'm asking because I honestly don't know how something becomes a BSR.) Or is it up to just the governing body to decide themselves and nobody else gets a say?

Christina


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 24, 2005, 9:46 AM
Post #267 of 295 (1187 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cbain] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>Even though this has been talked about and debated for years there
> doesn't appear to be any consistancy even between those that are
>recommending the BSR.

The general gist is from a letter we wrote to USPA a while back. Here it is:

--------------------------------

Letters to the Editor
USPA
1440 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 836-3495


Over the past few years, we have watched as more and more skydivers injure and kill themselves under high performance canopies. In 99% of the cases, this happens to a jumper who does not have the education and experience to fly his canopy safely. In the majority of cases, a larger canopy would have prevented the fatality or mitigated the injury. We, the undersigned, call on USPA to increase their role in canopy training to help prevent these sorts of fatalities in the future.

It is our position that only education can prevent accidents like these. Modern, heavily loaded high performance canopies can be flown safely only after sufficient education and/or experience has been obtained by the jumper. We ask USPA to do the following:

-Develop canopy skills requirements for the “B”, “C”, and “D” licenses that build upon the initial "A" license canopy skills. They should include canopy control classroom training, practical exercises, and a written and practical test. Once these are in place, add canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the “A” through “D” license, with a grandfather clause so this does not affect people currently jumping high wing loadings. As with other skills, restricted licenses would be available for jumpers who choose not to demonstrate HP canopy skills.

-To prevent exceptional jumpers from being held back unnecessarily, allow any instructor, I/E or S+TA to waiver these requirements based on a demonstration of canopy skills.

-Develop a Canopy Instructor (CI) rating which focuses on skills required to safely land heavily loaded high performance canopies. Currently, many jumpers receive no practical HP canopy training at all; it is possible to progress through the ISP jumping only a 288 square foot canopy. With the rapid development of very high performance canopies, canopy skills are as critical for skydiver survival (if not more critical) than freefall skills. The intent of the CI would be to teach the canopy skills required for the new licenses, and to waiver those who demonstrate the skill required to progress to small canopies more quickly than their jump numbers would ordinarily allow.

We recognize that any additional restrictions placed on skydivers should be considered very carefully; skydiving has never been a sport of heavy regulation, and regulations alone will not keep anyone safe. However, new regulations are falling into place already. Individual DZ's are implementing canopy loading restrictions with no education, no commonality and no way to "waiver out" of the requirements. We feel that USPA could implement a canopy training program that will educate more jumpers, be less restrictive and keep even pilots of very high performance canopies alive and jumping.


Signed,

William von Novak D16479
Chuck Blue D12501
Derek Vanboeschoten D18847
Lisa Briggs D14633

----------------------------------

Since then we've added the ability to 'waiver out' of the restrictions by taking a canopy control course and passing the practical test at the end.


>Or is it up to just the governing body to decide themselves and nobody
>else gets a say?

Well, you get a say indirectly. You elect people who you think will represent you well and they vote on such things. Sort of like how our legislature works.


freakbrother  (D License)

Jan 24, 2005, 10:47 AM
Post #268 of 295 (1163 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
So you have no actual facts either?

I actually do. I've bore witness to many accidents that were never filed with the USPA over my 8 years in the sport. You have 6, I'd assume by now you've been exposed to the same amount of stuff that I have. I'd be extremely surprised if every accident you'd ever heard of or knew about was reported.

Quote:
You just assume, and go on from there.

No, I was actually there. I've also jumped at a number of dz's over the years and EVERY ONE of them didn't always file incident reports for injuries.

If you were there and saw them, then they weren't unseen and unreported, were they?

You are busting everyone ass because you say there is not data to support it. Then you come up with statements like this. Thats not data, thats just you standing around watching again.
Can you give me the dates, times, age, gender, canopy type, experience and cause of death on these "No, I was actually there" incidents you are so proud of.

I can give you chapter and verse on 11 fatalities that I did the investigation. I can show you pictures of the scene and see if you can keep your dinner down. And you have the gaul to say there is no data to support this program.

Your behavior reminds me of a spoiled brat stomping her feet and yelling "me, me, me".

Bill, Derek, and the others that have and are putting so much time and effort into this thing, I wish you luck. It like talking with Moe, Larry and Curly.

Sparky

You are missing the point of having a discussion on this topic AT ALL. If all taht was wanted was a rubber stamp of Brian Germain's or Billvon's or Hooknswoop's proposals, that should have been stated at the outset.

Pictures of your gory investigations won't answer the VALID questions that have been asked about the extent of the problem as it relates to jump numbers and WL. Nor will they address the issue of whether a table like Brians or a license based proposal like Billvon's/Derek's is better.

Assuming that you do actually want USPA to do something, it is necessary to take to the BOD the strongest possible proposal, with as much supporting data as you can, with the real risk factors carefully identified and addressed. That can only come about from open discussion, including the input from skeptics.


Personally I rather like Billvon's version that links to license level and training. IIRC that came about after long discussions here in summer 2003 and incorporated ideas contributed by several people, including some skeptics.


If you can't or won't answer questions raised here, how will you get on with the BOD? Consider this rather like the rehearsal before the real debate.

If a BOD member was to ask during the presentation of this proposal "Can you tell us roughly how many sub D license members are currently jumping at WL>1.5", or "Please tell us what fraction of landing fatalities since 2001 have less than 500 jumps and high WL" or "Isn't this primarily a problem of males under the age of 25?", will you respond to them the way you respond to us, that they shouldn't be asking and do they want to see gory pictures? These are the type of questions that occurred to some of us, and I expect they will occur to the BOD too.


Your efforts to suppress dissenting views and denounce difficult questions are not helpful.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 24, 2005, 10:48 AM
Post #269 of 295 (1158 views)
Shortcut
Re: [penniless] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Do you serve cheese with that wine. Maybe you could have gotten up and looked for it on your own. So far you have come up with nothing but complaints and no data to support those complaints.

Now that Bill has provided you with this information does it change you mind? If not, why did you feel the need to complain about not having it?

Sparky


cbain  (D 25839)

Jan 24, 2005, 10:50 AM
Post #270 of 295 (1156 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank you for posting the letter. I think it was very well written.

I wonder if we made it a petition and got 100's or 1000's of signatures at DZ's all over to support it if USPA would take more notice?

Basically start a lobbying group, like the lobbyists in Washington to get legislature passed. I keep referring back to our government because I guess I see USPA like the governing body of skydiving.

Christina


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 24, 2005, 11:36 AM
Post #271 of 295 (1140 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakbrother] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Your efforts to suppress dissenting views and denounce difficult questions are not helpful.

I am not attempting to suppress dissenting views. I am tired of people who want to practice for the debating team or just want to stand on the sideline and throw rocks. If you have something to contribute, even if it to say this will not work because of, speak up. But if you just want to rant to hear yourself rant, take it to SC.

We have had 2 DZO's give us a look at how it might be if something is not done by USPA. Now we can work together at make a go of this or we can let each DZO come up with their own program. You will find that they will be far less open to "dissenting views" then you think I am.

I have watched this debate with the low pull issue, bandit demos and all the other things over the years. There will be some form of regulation put in place. Right now we have a chance to determine how it will be structured. At some point in the future we will not.

I am done with this.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 24, 2005, 12:01 PM
Post #272 of 295 (1129 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakbrother] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
That can only come about from open discussion, including the input from skeptics.

That is fine. Open discussion has and does make things better.

What I disagree with is 1) The attitude that we must prove something to you and if we don't then the proposal has no value and 2) The attitude that some people have that they are self appointed judges of BSR proposals.

If you have reservations about the WL BSR, that is OK. But don't just say, I don't think it will work or it is a good idea or necessary, “You must prove to me that it is a good idea.” Take the attitude of my fellow skydivers have an idea, I think I can improve upon that idea, I'll throw out what I think can be improved and how I think it should be improved. Be a part of the team, not just some self appointed troll under the bridge. This proposal affects you, be a part of it.

Some people seem to want to argue every step of the way, then argue how that step was argued, then argue how we argued how that step was argued. That is tiresome and unnecessary. It feels like I’m arguing with the flat earth society sometimes and the high school debate club other times. As some are beginning to realize, I think, it is very difficult and frustrating to be on the idea side. There is a huge difference between constructive criticism and helping to make the proposal as good as it can be.


This is what I know:

There are an increasing number of preventable injuries and fatalities from open canopy incidents.

Canopy performance is increasing and outpacing canopy instruction.

Until the ISP and before that, on a smaller scale, the AFP program, canopy control instruction was neglected beyond just talking a student down on a radio for a few jumps. That worked OK for very large, slow canopies and when a Sabre 150 the highest performance canopy around.

Jumpers are downsizing faster and to smaller canopies than ever before.

Canopy control training and education will prevent open canopy incidents.

Higher wing loadings cause a canopy to fly and descend faster and have a higher top speed, all other things being equal.

A BSR must be like a student harness. It must fit almost everyone. This means it will fit almost no one perfectly. The minimum pull altitude BSR is a perfect example of this. The lower you pull, especially below 2000 feet without a lot of experience, the risk level starts to really rise quickly.

Newer jumpers tend to not be equipped to make accurate determinations of their risk level. They don’t even know everything that can go wrong yet.

You can downsize too quickly, but you cannot downsize too slowly.

A 180-degree turn under a Sabre 190 at a WL of 1.1:1 at 300 feet won’t result in the jumper impacting the ground. A 180-degree turn under a Stiletto 107 at a WL of 1.95:1 will result in the jumper impacting the ground. Hard.

Jumps number is a good indication of experience. There are always exceptions, but it is fairly accurate.

Experience is necessary to fly HP canopies.

Education and training makes for a safer canopy pilot.

A WL BSR will no more stop all open canopy incidents any more than the minimum pull altitude BSR prevents all low pull/no pull incidents.

A WL BSR combined with canopy training and education will reduce the number of injuries and fatalities from open canopy incidents.

Derek


freakbrother  (D License)

Jan 24, 2005, 12:40 PM
Post #273 of 295 (1116 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
That can only come about from open discussion, including the input from skeptics.

That is fine. Open discussion has and does make things better.

What I disagree with is 1) The attitude that we must prove something to you and if we don't then the proposal has no value and 2) The attitude that some people have that they are self appointed judges of BSR proposals.

If you have reservations about the WL BSR, that is OK. But don't just say, I don't think it will work or it is a good idea or necessary, “You must prove to me that it is a good idea.” Take the attitude of my fellow skydivers have an idea, I think I can improve upon that idea, I'll throw out what I think can be improved and how I think it should be improved.

I expect you know at least as many, maybe more, BOD members as I do. IMO some of them will need a lot of convincing to pass a new BSR. Answering the questions NOW is clearly frustrating to you, but by the time you get to the BOD you will have heard all the objections.

It IS incumbent on you, if you take a proposal to the BOD, to be able to make a clear, strong case as to why this SPECIFIC proposal is (a) needed, (b) will deal with the issues, (c) is not unduly restrictive and that you have made every effort to deal with all contingencies, and (d) has an implementation plan that can work.

For my part, I think you can make a good case based on existing accident data, and I think a plan based on license levels is more likely to succeed than one based on jump numbers for several reasons that have been explained in previous threads. I think you need work on the grandfathering aspect of your plan, and the details of the implemention (that I have seen) seem a bit vague (for example how exactly is it to be enforced, what exact canopy skills will be taught and tested for the test out and license progression.)

If you really want the best input, make sure that everyone is on the same page with respect to the details since several versions are floating around, and make those details a sticky somewhere so we can refer to them without having to search the forums every time.

Work calls, or I'd amplify.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 24, 2005, 1:07 PM
Post #274 of 295 (1106 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakbrother] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Answering the questions NOW is clearly frustrating to you

Questions, no problem. Playing debate games, yes, I am tired of that.

Quote:
but by the time you get to the BOD you will have heard all the objections.

I've signed my letter. I am no longer a member of USPA. So I won't be going to the BOD w/ anything. That is on you.

Quote:
I think you need work on the grandfathering aspect of your plan, and the details of the implemention (that I have seen) seem a bit vague (for example how exactly is it to be enforced, what exact canopy skills will be taught and tested for the test out and license progression.)

I think you need to work on the proposal and run with it. It is your sport, you make it better. Beyond a few posts here, I'm not doing anything else with it.

If it does or doesn't become a BSR, it won't affect me at all. I will either feel like I amde a contribution or shake my head and laugh every time I read about another 200 jump wonder hammering in under a pocket rocket.

Derek


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jan 24, 2005, 2:03 PM
Post #275 of 295 (1088 views)
Shortcut
Re: [okalb] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There are exceptions to every rule on both sides of the equation, but rules are not written for the exceptions. There are plenty of drivers who can safely handle their cars at speeds that far exceed the speed limits. The speed limits are designed for the masses not the few. The fact that we are proposing a test out option for the exceptions makes it fair for all.

This has gone from heated to downright ugly, so I'll take Matt's suggestion and do my final piece, commenting in particular on this statement.

Removing aside the politics of ticket revenue and max speed laws, the speed limit is set at the 85th percentile. They sit out on the road, measure every vehicle's speed, and at the end the limit is roughly at that 85%. And this generally works just fine - people drive at a speed they feel safe with, regardless of the limit. This has been established by experimenting with different posted limits.

But a W/L BSR of 1.0 to 100, 1.1 to 200, 1.2 to 200 isn't at the 85th percentile. It's instead targetted to the lowest common demoninator. And so I suggested proposing Brian's chart as best practice, but setting the never exceed .2 higher.

This would still eliminate the majority of the incidents you bring up, yet still allow those who choose to, to be more aggressive without being reckless about it. The buffer would also be large enough to cover more docile or large canopies, and probably remove the need for a test out option. I still think grandfathering is wrong, but matched to a fairer new standard, let it be.

Sorry, Nathaniel, but a grey list is a ridiculous complication. It sounds like a poison pill to me.

I'm lurking this thread now - PM me to start a new thread if anyone wants to debate this modification. (I won't hold my breath)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jan 24, 2005, 2:07 PM
Post #276 of 295 (1136 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
But a W/L BSR of 1.0 to 100, 1.1 to 200, 1.2 to 200 isn't at the 85th percentile. It's instead targetted to the lowest common demoninator. And so I suggested proposing Brian's chart as best practice, but setting the never exceed .2 higher.

Makes sense to me.

Derek


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 24, 2005, 3:29 PM
Post #277 of 295 (1122 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>But a W/L BSR of 1.0 to 100, 1.1 to 200, 1.2 to 200 isn't at the 85th
>percentile.

It was 3 years ago. It won't even be close in 10 (if nothing is done, that is.) The problem is that average loadings at a given experience are going up rapidly, and education is not. If you had some sort of restriction that you made flexible enough to 'keep up with the times' it wouldn't do much good - because large numbers of people doing a stupid thing does not make the action any less stupid.

When I started skydiving, a Monarch 190 was a deadly dangerous canopy that only the DZO was allowed to jump. Made sense at the time; no one knew how to land HP canopies other than by trial and error. Yet today a Sabre 190 is a common canopy for someone right off student status. What changed? Canopies didn't change. The air didn't change. Without coaching (and most people still don't get coaching) their skills didn't change.

The answer is that nothing has changed. That ZP 190 is just as dangerous as ever; it's just that people are more used to them and not afraid of them. Thus we're seeing more and more deaths under them. The fear that that Monarch 190 could kill you turned out to be justified.

So I would rather determine loadings based on what someone with zero training can land (i.e. someone who learns purely by trial and error) rather than try to figure out what the 85th percentile is or anything. Just because most low timers are jumping highly loaded canopies does not make low timers jumping highly loaded canopies any safer or more sensible.

The Brian Germain limits are pretty reasonable. I don't know if I'd go with a wing loading of 1.2 for someone with 20 jumps as a 'safe' loading - that's a Sabre2 150 for someone who weighs 160 right off student status. But perhaps if it was broken down further, say 1.0 to A license, then 1.2 to B license, that would work.


nathaniel

Jan 24, 2005, 10:03 PM
Post #278 of 295 (1086 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
As another DZO, such a list would be bad in my opinion. If someone was on the list, I let them jump at my DZ, and someting happened.......I can see the lawsuits now. So I would just not let anyone on the list jump.
That'd stack the deck pretty harshly against anyone who should get listed. They'd have their work cut out for them to convince you they're safe, in order for you to even consider letting them jump again. Is that not desirable? Then you could charge em double Wink As a DZO, you'd get to decide, and if you saw fit you could refuse to permit them at all. I think that's perhaps a suitable sanction.

Quote:

Now let's look at someone who get's in here and argues (with good intentions or not) with these more experienced people and one of them isn't as professional as they should be and decides to put them on the list...... Now, they aren't jumping because they pissed someone off away from the DZ.
Hence the arbitration process. There has to be some fee up front on the complainant, to keep bogus complaints down and to renumerate the arbitrator. But given the current price ranges already involved in the sport I don't think it would be unreasonable. edit for elaboration: If the DZO had acted in a grossly inappropriate fashion, he should be sanctioned. For starters, the arbitration body should award the aggrieved party the compensation of the arbitration fee (ie, from the DZO's wallet), & if further sanction were required it would be determined by the arbitrator, fines, censure, revocation of privileges, or whatever they deem sufficient & appropriate. This type of scenario is common in other industries. The best analogue I can think of (actually, the inspiration) is the NASD's arbitration system.

Quote:
I am sorry, but I see more harm than good from such a list.

No harm done, it's just an idea.

nathaniel


(This post was edited by nathaniel on Jan 24, 2005, 11:29 PM)


peek  (D 8884)

Jan 26, 2005, 8:24 AM
Post #279 of 295 (1022 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

I am replying to Bill, the original poster, but this is not specifically addressed to him.

Would some proponent of a wingloading BSR like to address the more practical considerations of (trying to) enforce such a rule?

For example, isn't it nice when a police officer with a radar gun is allowed the judgement of when to actually issue a ticket? They don't give out tickets for going 2 MPH over the speed limit do they? Wouldn't be a good idea even if the radar was recently calibrated, eh?

Well, exactly when _would_ you consider not letting a skydiver jump? When they are 3 pounds over the weight limit for their canopy size (according to this BSR)? How about 5 pounds?

How about this skydiver who is 3 pounds over just takes off his jumpsuit, helmet, and shoes to fall within the allowed weight limits? That would be smart of use wouldn't it? Making a rule that could create a situation like this?

So you might be thinking now that I am being ridiculous and that this example is rather far-fetched?
So that wouldn't happen you say? People would use their judgement enforcing this BSR?


PS.

Oh, and whose scale?

"No I'm not, I just checked my weight this morning on my Jazzmo 6 electronic scale, your piece of shit scale here at the drop zone is off by 5 pounds!"


Well it's simple of course? The DZO can interpret this rule, like they can interpret the maximum weight for students, the minimum pull altitude, etc. No they can't! A rule is a rule.

So someone gains 10 pounds over the winter and can no longer jump their own gear because they are now over the wingloading for their experience?

Only 10 pounds, well that's OK. What about 12 pounds?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 26, 2005, 10:36 AM
Post #280 of 295 (1007 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peek] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>Would some proponent of a wingloading BSR like to address the
>more practical considerations of (trying to) enforce such a rule?

Sure. Basically it's no different than any other BSR.

The BSR we're talking about would be the least-strict of the BSR's; it would be designated (S) for waiverable by an S+TA or I/E. Since your question seems to be about the difficulty of enforcing a hard-and-fast rule, let's look at how more strict BSR's are enforced:

The most strict of our BSR's are [NW] or not waiverable at all. As an example, let's take BSR B1, the requirement to comply with all FAA regulations. That means, among other things, that you must be at least one mile from any cloud when you exit an aircraft at 12,500 feet.

How is this enforced in reality? Do S+TA's use laser distance measuring equipment to verify that the aircraft is at least 1 mile from every nearby cloud on jump run? Does he review videos and estimate the distance, and then ground anyone who seems to be only 3/4 of a mile from a cloud? Are DZ's shut down when any little puffy cloud appears?

No. It's generally only enforced when it's a problem. If a bunch of freeflyers come near the edge of a cloud it's not a problem (even though it's a violation of the BSR.) If a tandem punches the edge of a cloud that might be a problem. If a certain spotter always spots for clouds because he thinks it's cool, then it's a problem. And when the S+TA comes to deal with the guy, the BSR he's going to use is B1. It helps him in his job to keep people at his DZ safe.

Let's take a somewhat less strict BSR, G4. It states that C and D license holders must be open by 2000 feet, and is [E] waiverable - which means it can be ignored, but the executive committee must vote and agree to ignore it on a case-by-case basis.

Again, how is this enforced in reality? Do S+TA's stand outside with theodolites and figure out where people pull? If someone seems to pull at 1900 feet, does the S+TA come over, demand the protrack of everyone on the load, and ground anyone whose protrack reads an opening lower than 2000? If a breakoff on a record attempt happens 300 feet low, and the outer ring pulls around 1800 feet as a result, are the ratings of everyone on the dive pulled?

Of course not. If someone pulls at 1900 feet on occasion, it's not a problem pretty much everywhere. If someone pulls at 1500 feet on occasion, he might get talked to. If someone makes it a habit of opening at 1200 feet, then he is going to get talked to, and the S+TA is going to cite BSR G4 as his reason.

To answer your specific question:

>Well, exactly when _would_ you consider not letting a skydiver jump?

When he clearly cannot control his heavily loaded canopy. When he comes screaming into the landing area yelling "Look out! Look out!" When he takes out other people who are just standing around. When he bounces himself off the grass a few times but says "I'm fine, not my fault, I got cut off." That's when the BSR will come in handy. "Sorry, you're way exceeding the limits of this BSR, and you can't jump that canopy here until you take the course."

>People would use their judgement enforcing this BSR?

Just as they do now when they enforce every other BSR.

>Oh, and whose scale?

The same scale they use to deny tandem students their jump when they're overweight.

>Well it's simple of course? The DZO can interpret this rule, like they
>can interpret the maximum weight for students, the minimum pull
>altitude, etc. No they can't! A rule is a rule.

A rule IS a rule. And just like the pull altitude, it will be enforced when it's a safety issue, not when someone is 50 feet below their pull altitude (or 3 pounds over the weight limit, or 100 feet too close to a cloud.)

>So someone gains 10 pounds over the winter and can no longer jump
> their own gear because they are now over the wingloading for their
> experience?

If they can still land their canopy, no one will care. (Do you verify that everyone at your DZ is below the 254 lb limit for their gear under TSO C23c?) If they can't land their canopies, then it will become an issue - and they won't be allowed to jump a canopy they can't land.

None of this is new. We regularly exceed TSOed (i.e. FAA mandated) limitations for our gear, minimum pull altitudes, cloud clearance requirements and oxygen requirements. That doesn't mean the BSR's are worthless. Rather, it means that we have a guide to what to do, and a means to stop egregious violations. We don't bust people for pulling at 1900 feet, or pilots for going to 15,500 MSL without O2 for everyone on board, or a jumper for getting out half a mile from a cloud, or a 240 lb guy for jumping a C23c reserve - unless they are causing serious problems by doing so. This BSR would be no different.


(This post was edited by billvon on Jan 26, 2005, 10:44 AM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jan 26, 2005, 10:39 AM
Post #281 of 295 (1009 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peek] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

 
If you consider that the chart has more strict requirements for canpoies smaller than 150 sq ft, the variations in WL created by a change in weight of under 10 lbs, would be minnimal. Seeing as these numbers are the MAX wl, if a jumper was right on the line, and then gained 10 lbs, that represents an increase of less than .1 lbs, per square ft. Even if this were a common occurence, it would still be a better situation than the current one, where essentially, anything goes.

Otherwise, enforcement would be simple. Have the DZO post the guidelines, along with note stating, 'I expect everyone to abide by these guidelines. If you are found to be outside of these guidelines, you will be asked to leave, and not return until your equipment is within spec'.

Sooner or later it will become common knowledge, much like pull altitudes. No DZO can watch every jumper on every jump, but when a guy hums it down, if the DZO sees, he'll get a talking to, and the jumper will pormise to never do it again. If it happens repeatedly, there will probably some sanction on the part of the DZO.

The advatage to the WL requirement is that the DZO only has to see it happen once, and can ground the jumper (or their gear) unitl they switch canopies.


Liemberg  (Student)

Jan 26, 2005, 1:03 PM
Post #282 of 295 (987 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peek] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Gary,

Our (the Dutch) BSR - annex: 'rules for parachute-choice' START with:
"in par 501 of the BSR it says that any jumper that wants to jump with another parachute and changes the 'experience-category' must meet certain demands. Demands are as follows..."

Well, they could have worded that better (in Dutch it is as horrible as in English, language-wise) but what is ment is 'grandfathering the situation as is' and 'demands only come in play, when you are downsizing'. Someone gaining a few pounds but jumping the canopy he made 50 jumps with last year - or replacing it with something from the same category - wouldn't be bothered.

Then again, they didn't make it waiverable at the discretion of DZO / S & TA ...

Since this (primarily) seems to be a discussion about the situation in the USA...

Bill always speaks softly - I think USPA ought to give him the big stick he's asking for. I'm sure he'll remain soft-spoken... Smile


freakbrother  (D License)

Jan 26, 2005, 1:07 PM
Post #283 of 295 (984 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If you consider that the chart has more strict requirements for canpoies smaller than 150 sq ft, the variations in WL created by a change in weight of under 10 lbs, would be minnimal. Seeing as these numbers are the MAX wl, if a jumper was right on the line, and then gained 10 lbs, that represents an increase of less than .1 lbs, per square ft. Even if this were a common occurence, it would still be a better situation than the current one, where essentially, anything goes.

Otherwise, enforcement would be simple. Have the DZO post the guidelines, along with note stating, 'I expect everyone to abide by these guidelines. If you are found to be outside of these guidelines, you will be asked to leave, and not return until your equipment is within spec'.

Sooner or later it will become common knowledge, much like pull altitudes. No DZO can watch every jumper on every jump, but when a guy hums it down, if the DZO sees, he'll get a talking to, and the jumper will pormise to never do it again. If it happens repeatedly, there will probably some sanction on the part of the DZO.

The advatage to the WL requirement is that the DZO only has to see it happen once, and can ground the jumper (or their gear) unitl they switch canopies.

Which chart is this?

Brian Germain's or Billvon's draft BSR clicky which is quite different.

It would be SO helpful if people would specify which particular proposal they are referring to.
"God is in the details" (St. Thomas Aquinas).


FWIW (not much, I expect), I am firmly against encoding Brian's chart as a BSR, while I like Billvon's proposal based on licenses and canopy training.


tspillers  (D 21601)

Jan 27, 2005, 6:32 AM
Post #284 of 295 (934 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peek] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Gary,

I think this is why a guidline might be more appropriate at this time. Right now as a DZO, I just tell people NO. Your not ready, do these tasks, show me this or that, your judgement keeps getting you into situations that will get you hurt on a smaller canopy, etc.

All of our students either buy, or download a SIM. If there was a chart in there to refer them to, then it is in black and white that wiser, older (hehe, stab at most of the board memebers Wink) jumpers have determined a safe progression.

I still say education is everything, but this would be another tool. We teach canopy control to our students and quite often go well beyond the ISP. If they start talking to students from other DZ's, they start thinking they are way ahead of the game (in many ways they are), rather than the others being behind.

My 1/2 cent.

Todd


tspillers  (D 21601)

Jan 27, 2005, 6:38 AM
Post #285 of 295 (932 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakbrother] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that both should be presented to the S&T Committee. Remeber, a proposal like this doesn't go to a board. It goes to a Committee and the committee makes a proposal/suggestion to the board to vote on. If an individual (or group) goes to the open board, most likely the board says X committee (S&T in this case) discuss this and get back with us. The down side is that generally means that because of the 'agenda' that it won't even be discussed until the next meeting (6 months for USPA).

I believe me, that even though you may not see a lot of board members posting here, some are reading and will take some info to the committees.


Todd


freakbrother  (D License)

Jan 27, 2005, 9:19 AM
Post #286 of 295 (912 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think that both should be presented to the S&T Committee. Remeber, a proposal like this doesn't go to a board. It goes to a Committee and the committee makes a proposal/suggestion to the board to vote on. If an individual (or group) goes to the open board, most likely the board says X committee (S&T in this case) discuss this and get back with us. The down side is that generally means that because of the 'agenda' that it won't even be discussed until the next meeting (6 months for USPA).

I believe me, that even though you may not see a lot of board members posting here, some are reading and will take some info to the committees.


Todd

Right. My point is just that with several variations of a proposal floating around, it is helpful if contributors here identify clearly which particular variant their comments apply to. Otherwise we get to talking at cross purposes which is quite counter-productive.

(One of the advantages of Roberts Rules is that only one proposal can be discussed at a time.)


dorbie

Feb 1, 2005, 4:13 AM
Post #287 of 295 (854 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakbrother] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

The concept of a waiver needs to be clarified in this discussion. It's not a waiver if you meet the exemption requirements expressed in the BSR w.r.t. canopy course endorsement or skills signoff by a coach (or whatever the final requirement might be). You've simply qualified, the BSR is not being waived at least by the most sensible interpretation, you've qualified within the parameters of the BSR.

Even if one of the current proposals is less onerous than others there are other options not on the table that would be simpler, for example making anyone downsizing get their log book endorsed by a S&TA to that size based on a logbook review and discussion. This formalizes what prudent jumpers do now w.r.t. experienced review of their choices.

I really object to the argument that some basic safety requirements aren't rigidly enforced so we shouldn't worry about imposing another one because most people will flout it just so a few people can be singled out. It's a thoroughly bankrupt argument. That's the worst kind of rule and making that argument should be sending up red flags about approving this.


(This post was edited by dorbie on Feb 1, 2005, 4:20 AM)


peek  (D 8884)

Feb 1, 2005, 7:21 AM
Post #288 of 295 (827 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

tspillers:
Right now as a DZO, I just tell people NO. You're not ready, do these tasks, show me this or that, your judgement keeps getting you into situations that will get you hurt on a smaller canopy, etc.

Todd,

It is nice to hear that some DZO's have the guts to do this. My question to everyone else out there is why this won't work at other drop zones.

Safety can really come from only one place- from drop zone management, be it the owner, manager, club president, or whoever is in charge.

S&TA's can advise, (and sometimes they can even "control" if they are given the authority) but drop zone management is where it really comes from.

USPA cannot make skydiving "safe". It can barely make it safer.

Another question for all is why do many people think a wingloading chart from a national skydiving organization is going to be more well received than one from a prominent canopy flight expert like Brian Germain?

If I was a know-it-all young skydiver insisting that I was capable of handling a canopy that others thought would hurt me, I would certainly consider Brian's advice more than rules set up by a bunch of old people in a political organization, many of who have very little experience advanced canopy flight.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 1, 2005, 7:36 AM
Post #289 of 295 (825 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peek] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It is nice to hear that some DZO's have the guts to do this. My question to everyone else out there is why this won't work at other drop zones.

Various reasons. The DZ may be too large to micro-manage each jumper. The DZO and staff may be too busy to pay attention. The DZO's impression of what or is or isn't safe may be 'off'.

Quote:
why do many people think a wingloading chart from a national skydiving organization is going to be more well received than one from a prominent canopy flight expert

If I was a know-it-all young skydiver insisting that I was capable of handling a canopy that others thought would hurt me, I would certainly consider Brian's advice more than rules set up by a bunch of old people

This is a good point, however, involving the USPA is a tactic to get the DZO's to play along, as well as establish the rules they play by. In turn, the individual jumper will have to follow the rules, regardless of who laid them out, as the DZO will be behind them. You want to jump, you follow the rules.

Also, you can't tell a know-it-all anything even if you are a respected, world class canopy pilot. Your advice may stick with them for a few jumps, but thier minds will find a way to turn it into permission from a world class pilot to do whatever their heart desires.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Feb 1, 2005, 8:35 AM
Post #290 of 295 (804 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peek] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
My question to everyone else out there is why this won't work at other drop zones.

The question should be; "Why isn't this working at other DZ's?"

DZO's at other DZ's could do this, but don't. Why? Because there is no national standard? Because if they say "no", the jumper can take their money to their competetor and still jump? Because most DZO's don't care? Because most DZOs won't put effort into something unless there is $$$ in it for them?

Derek


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Feb 1, 2005, 8:40 AM
Post #291 of 295 (804 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peek] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

>My question to everyone else out there is why this won't work at other drop zones.

Because some DZ's don't have leaders who jump high performance canopies. Thus they either make rules that are incredibly restrictive (no loadings over the DZO's loading) rules that make no sense (no ellipticals but other canopies are fine) or forgo any sort of rule because they don't understand the issue. And while it is certainly their right to do that, USPA could help these people by providing them with canopy control restriction guidelines. Such guidelines could help keep competent jumpers in the air at DZ's that now have restrictive rules, and help keep 100 jump wonders alive at DZ's that don't understand what's going on.

>Safety can really come from only one place- from drop zone
> management, be it the owner, manager, club president, or whoever
>is in charge.

Agreed. Often, these people promulgate USPA BSR's because they are a simple and straightforward way to keep people at their DZ safer.

>Another question for all is why do many people think a wingloading chart
> from a national skydiving organization is going to be more well received
> than one from a prominent canopy flight expert like Brian Germain?

Because every USPA DZ in the country has a SIM and jumpers are required to read it (to pass the tests if nothing else.) Keep in mind that although Brian Germain is well-known to us, to someone with 100 jumps (i.e. the people most at risk) he may be a nobody.

>I would certainly consider Brian's advice more than rules set up by a
> bunch of old people in a political organization, many of who have very
> little experience advanced canopy flight.

Yet when it comes to things like opening altitudes, they listen to the old farts at USPA rather than experienced BASE jumpers who have oodles of experience opening low. Why? Because we have made the pull altitude BSR easier for DZO's to enforce by putting it in the SIM.


MakeItHappen

Feb 1, 2005, 8:02 PM
Post #292 of 295 (762 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

OT:

What is the email to reach you???

I have tried
tspillersATdropzone.com
dzoATskydiveaggieland.com
manifestATskydiveaggieland.com

no replies

.


tspillers  (D 21601)

Feb 2, 2005, 9:31 AM
Post #293 of 295 (716 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

dzo(at)skydiveaggieland.com

I was having some email issues, but I think I have worked around them.


Fixed that email address for you so you don't get spammed . . .


(This post was edited by billvon on Feb 3, 2005, 8:10 AM)


Liemberg  (Student)

Feb 2, 2005, 10:47 PM
Post #294 of 295 (671 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Make that dzoATskydiveaggieland.com
(Unless you want to buy viagra, cheap...) Tongue


tspillers  (D 21601)

Feb 3, 2005, 6:18 AM
Post #295 of 295 (649 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Liemberg] BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread) [In reply to] Can't Post

Wasn't thinking.... Maybe that is why I get so much junk. Unsure

Todd



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)