Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
USPA and the canopy issue

 

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

Para5-0  (D 19054)

Oct 27, 2010, 7:13 AM
Post #276 of 285 (871 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Fast] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

Thought: one thing that has helped me get the canopy word out so to speak is something I started last year. I was devasted to hear about the double canopy collision at Skys the Limit this year. Two older experienced guys who were adored by all.

I hold around 6 or so water trainings at our dropzone each season. When I get the 50 jump jumpers in front of me for water training, I incorporate a canopy discussion as well to include: landing patterns, canopy flight, canopy seperation, freefall seperation, exit order, landing area seperation, canopy characteristics...etc. This is all included in a power point prior to hitting the pool.
I figure I have their undivided attention and they have to be there so I have them. Why not use the time and fact they have to be there to my advantage. If there was a mandatory canopy sylabus it would be easy to incorporate it in at this point. It has worked well and I know that all new jumpers get that little extra that is needed at the 50 jump mark. It doesnt hurt to answer their questions at this point. Sometimes they are too shy to ask an instructor during normal jump days.
It also helps to do this in the evening or on non jump days so I really have no distractions.
I also like the C license and D license idea of a little extra on the topic being offered.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Oct 27, 2010, 7:54 AM
Post #277 of 285 (857 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Fast] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This comes back to the issue that someone else pointed out. USPA isn't much into doing any sort of enforcement. I don't know if that's a good thing or not.

It's not a good thing. Without consequences for surviving something stupid, stupid will keep happening - "I did that and survived so that rule must be bullshit." Without an SOP that assures that every violator receives the same punishment, we end up with one person getting their ratings yanked for and another getting away with the same exact offense.

It also needs to be transparent. If it's a big secret what actually happened to the offender, the membership has to wonder who is being protected - the membership or the offender?


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 27, 2010, 2:39 PM
Post #278 of 285 (803 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
This comes back to the issue that someone else pointed out. USPA isn't much into doing any sort of enforcement. I don't know if that's a good thing or not.

It's not a good thing. Without consequences for surviving something stupid, stupid will keep happening - "I did that and survived so that rule must be bullshit."

Since jumping out a a plane in flight is intrinsically a stupid thing to do, this must explain why you've given up skydiving. Following your logic, there should be a rule against skydiving.


Fast  (D 28237)

Oct 28, 2010, 9:57 AM
Post #279 of 285 (737 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
This comes back to the issue that someone else pointed out. USPA isn't much into doing any sort of enforcement. I don't know if that's a good thing or not.

It's not a good thing. Without consequences for surviving something stupid, stupid will keep happening - "I did that and survived so that rule must be bullshit."

Since jumping out a a plane in flight is intrinsically a stupid thing to do, this must explain why you've given up skydiving. Following your logic, there should be a rule against skydiving.

That's actually where I get hung up on the topic. There is a "whole lot wrong" with jumping out of a plane from a practical standpoint. None of us agree with any of that stuff though which is why we jump. So the question becomes, where does the line lay between what's stupid and what's not stupid in a sport that most of the modern world doesn't really understand.

I don't want to see the fun, innovation or free thinkers regulated out of the sport. I think that would do more harm than good. If everyone sits down and decides that hook turning at 30 feet is a bad idea though (I'm exaggerating) then maybe we should do something about that and there needs to be someone standing behind what is decided.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Oct 28, 2010, 4:28 PM
Post #280 of 285 (698 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Following your logic, there should be a rule against skydiving.

Not my logic. Yours. Fairly faulty, too. Which is surprising considering your profession. But you just keep sliding down that slippery slope, Prof. You know you're right and that's all that matters.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Oct 29, 2010, 5:50 PM
Post #281 of 285 (645 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
This comes back to the issue that someone else pointed out. USPA isn't much into doing any sort of enforcement. I don't know if that's a good thing or not.

It's not a good thing. Without consequences for surviving something stupid, stupid will keep happening - "I did that and survived so that rule must be bullshit."

Since jumping out a a plane in flight is intrinsically a stupid thing to do, this must explain why you've given up skydiving. Following your logic, there should be a rule against skydiving.

+1

Cool


robinheid  (D 5533)

Oct 29, 2010, 8:09 PM
Post #282 of 285 (624 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Following your logic, there should be a rule against skydiving.

Not my logic. Yours. Fairly faulty, too. Which is surprising considering your profession. But you just keep sliding down that slippery slope, Prof. You know you're right and that's all that matters.

Sorry, Skybytch, the good professor did indeed follow your premise to its logical conclusion - a conclusion to which orders of magnitude more people subscribe than to "your" logical conclusion that only certain skydiving practices are stupid.

There are about 50,000 skydivers on this planet of 6 billion people-- one out of every 120 million. That means we can safely say that at least 5.99 billion of those 6 billion concur with the professor's logical conclusion rather than "yours."

Cool


(This post was edited by robinheid on Oct 29, 2010, 8:10 PM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 31, 2010, 6:31 PM
Post #283 of 285 (560 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Following your logic, there should be a rule against skydiving.

Not my logic. Yours. Fairly faulty, too. Which is surprising considering your profession. But you just keep sliding down that slippery slope, Prof. You know you're right and that's all that matters.

Logic and consistency are not your strong suits, are they?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 1, 2010, 11:32 AM
Post #284 of 285 (507 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

Let's avoid the personal comments please.


dorbie

Nov 1, 2010, 11:50 AM
Post #285 of 285 (499 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Next, Ed detailed the things USPA has done to combat the problem. In 2000, canopy training was introduced as part of the Integrated Student Program. In 2005, the head shed distributed a video – called “Fly to Survive” – and an accompanying poster to group member DZ’s. By 2006, USPA updated the Skydiver’s Information Manual with more information on canopy flight. In 2008 a new provision was added to the group member pledge requiring DZ’s to “establish and disseminate landing procedures that include separation of high-speed landings and normal landings”. He also mentioned numerous e-newsletters and repeated “Parachutist” magazine content on the subject.

..........two safety advisories on the subject.

I submit that the problem persists is because ....................

All this and more people died.

Here's the problem with simply pursuing the same rules more rigorously, if even SOME DZs had implemented these recommendations, fatalities might have been expected to decline (underneath the noise).

So this doesn't offer any explanation for the increase just proposes another untested solution. In fact rough though it may seem, one candidate for the biggest change during this increase may have been emphasis and training on canopy piloting.

There are alternative explanations, since a lack of follow-through on incident investigation would NOT in itself CAUSE numbers to "skyrocket". therefore a few other questions might be higher on the priority list.

Did those involved in accidents recieve additional canopy training; many aspiring swoopers tend to, are the emboldened by it?

What type & size of loads and jumps led some of the incidents. Some of the loudest voices on canopy piloting love bigways (for example).

When stuff isn't working it's time to get dispassionate and ask some questions that aren't simply aimed at promoting the same rules and agenda.


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)