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

 

First page Previous page 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next page Last page  View All

penniless  (B License)

Jan 23, 2005, 9:23 AM
Post #201 of 295 (1022 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 (1020 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 (1018 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 (1017 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 (1015 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 (1014 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 (1012 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 (1010 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 (1006 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 (1004 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 (1001 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 (999 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 (997 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 (994 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 (992 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 (990 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 (989 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 (986 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 (983 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 (983 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 (978 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 (976 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 (962 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 (957 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 (957 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.


First page Previous page 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)