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

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12 Next page Last page  View All

danornan  (D 11308)

Oct 11, 2010, 9:17 AM
Post #126 of 285 (1049 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
but to me, that is not the real problem. I'm sure that it will help, but the main problem this year is the actions below 1,000 feet and in the so called landing pattern

That is part of canopy training.

I disagree ... If multiple groups are boarding an Otter and one group "decides" to land into the wind and it changes for the second load and one person "heard" that they should follow the first person down, and "most" people know that the landing direction is N-S, they are all right and we have a real cluster in the LZ. How is that taught in the SIM?

Everyone is right and we have kaos. There needs to be a drop zone rule that everyone follows. Not something determined at the loading area.


Ron

Oct 11, 2010, 9:28 AM
Post #127 of 285 (1044 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danornan] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I disagree ... If multiple groups are boarding an Otter and one group "decides" to land into the wind and it changes for the second load and one person "heard" that they should follow the first person down, and "most" people know that the landing direction is N-S, they are all right and we have a real cluster in the LZ. How is that taught in the SIM?

Simple... You are supposed to land in the direction as the first person down on your load. You are taught that training. The people that didn't get the memo didn't ask and they failed in their prep.

If there is a doubt which is the landing direction, you discuss this before you take off... Again taught in training.

Quote:
Everyone is right and we have kaos.

Not everyone is right. This is where you are missing the point.

Quote:
There needs to be a drop zone rule that everyone follows. Not something determined at the loading area.

There are rules:

1. Land in the direction as the first person down.
2. Discuss the landing direction before loading.

If you don't follow the rules, that is an individual problem, not a rules problem.

It is like you claiming that a guy running a red light is cause for creating a new rule... The answer is to punish the red light runner, not make another rule he will ignore.


(This post was edited by Ron on Oct 11, 2010, 9:30 AM)


robinheid  (D 5533)

Oct 11, 2010, 10:53 AM
Post #128 of 285 (1017 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I'm sure that it will help, but the main problem this year is the actions below 1,000 feet and in the so called landing pattern.

The pattern and the importance of flying it predictably are part of the basic canopy skills course outlined in the SIM. Teaching it helps a lot - I've seen improvement in the pattern at the dz I used to jump at after teaching 4 courses using the outline in the SIM.

See, this is what I meant when I demolished DSE's straw man on this point a few posts back: Everything we need is, in fact, already in the system -- it's just in the WRONG ORDER.

We need to stop with the freefall training from first-jump on, and focus on the parachute training until beginning parachutists "graduate" with their basic parachute skills dialed in.

Then they commence with freefall training.

It isn't revolutionary, it isn't going back to the past, and it sure isn't rocket science; it's just rearranging the existing system to eliminate the freefall-focused bias of its progenitors in favor of the common sense imperative that we teach the survival skills before the fun skills.

Cool


pilotdave  (D License)

Oct 11, 2010, 7:22 PM
Post #129 of 285 (983 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
See, this is what I meant when I demolished DSE's straw man on this point a few posts back: Everything we need is, in fact, already in the system -- it's just in the WRONG ORDER.

Demolished? Wow. How did I miss it?

I just don't agree with your opinion. I don't believe the order matters. In fact, I think it would make things worse to focus entirely on canopy training first. I've explained my reasons earlier in this thread. Can I take credit for demolishing anything now?

Dave


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Oct 11, 2010, 7:32 PM
Post #130 of 285 (977 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

See, this is what I meant when I demolished DSE's straw man on this point a few posts back: Everything we need is, in fact, already in the system -- it's just in the WRONG ORDER.

"Demolished?"

Lemme guess...you carry a special shrink to fit ruler, too?LaughLaugh
What you're agreeing to now is what I said earlier. The basics are already there.
How they're implemented is a different story.
You failed to explain why advanced training post AFF is a bad thing.
Do you often disagree with yourself?


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 11, 2010, 8:42 PM
Post #131 of 285 (968 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I disagree ... If multiple groups are boarding an Otter and one group "decides" to land into the wind and it changes for the second load and one person "heard" that they should follow the first person down, and "most" people know that the landing direction is N-S, they are all right and we have a real cluster in the LZ. How is that taught in the SIM?

Simple... You are supposed to land in the direction as the first person down on your load. You are taught that training. The people that didn't get the memo didn't ask and they failed in their prep.

.

Was at a big way event at Elsinore earlier this year when, in light and variable winds, two people each thought they would be 1st down and set up in opposite directions. Mass confusion followed. F'in stupid rule IMO.


Ron

Oct 12, 2010, 5:56 AM
Post #132 of 285 (940 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Was at a big way event at Elsinore earlier this year when, in light and variable winds, two people each thought they would be 1st down and set up in opposite directions. Mass confusion followed. F'in stupid rule IMO.

You ignored rule #2 then. That's YOUR fault.... One rule normally does not cover every situation.

You would think having been involved in a collision you would have done a better job of following rule #2 this time.


(This post was edited by Ron on Oct 12, 2010, 5:57 AM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Oct 12, 2010, 6:21 AM
Post #133 of 285 (932 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

Oh ho ho ho hoooo!
Another FMD proponent!

Another DZ to avoid!

"One rule normally does not cover every situation."
Sure thing! Designated landing pattern does it.
Oh...you're worried about downwind landings...well, learn that skill! Simple as that!

Show us where the SIM teaches FMD, please.


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Oct 12, 2010, 6:24 AM)


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Oct 12, 2010, 8:03 AM
Post #134 of 285 (916 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

At Elsinore, the rule is pretty simple, and issues are fairly rare.
Light/variable winds; land towards the lake.
If you do not want to land towards the lake, go to the student landing area, to the pond area (look out for swoopers), or to the open fields to the west or north. Worst case, head for the empty field (private property) to the west


Ron

Oct 12, 2010, 8:39 AM
Post #135 of 285 (903 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Oh ho ho ho hoooo!
Another FMD proponent!

You need to read the whole thing and not jump to accusations.

Work on that.

Quote:
Another DZ to avoid!

Please do. I don't need people who only read half the rules creating a dangerous situation.

Quote:
Oh...you're worried about downwind landings...well, learn that skill! Simple as that!

I'll put my canopy control skills up against yours any day of the week.


(This post was edited by Ron on Oct 12, 2010, 8:46 AM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Oct 13, 2010, 12:57 AM
Post #136 of 285 (860 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You need to read the whole thing and not jump to accusations.

"You need to read the whole thing......"
LaughLaugh
Typical lame comeback.

You stated 2 rules. One was the FMD, one was
discuss it:

(From post #127 was it?)
There are rules:

1. Land in the direction as the first person down.
2. Discuss the landing direction before loading.

I believe, unless my eyes are deceiving me, that there's a mention of FMD in there somewhere.

Quote:
Another DZ to avoid!

In reply to:
Please do. I don't need people who only read half the rules creating a dangerous situation.
Comeback based on typical lameness as before.

And you're safe with your FMD stuff creating the dangerous situations. Have fun.

Quote:
Oh...you're worried about downwind landings...well, learn that skill! Simple as that!

In reply to:
I'll put my canopy control skills up against yours any day of the week.

OK, the "you're" was 2nd person plural intended for all FMD proponents, not 2nd personal singular. No need to puff up your chest on piloting skills. I should have been more specific.



---------------------
In reply to:
You are supposed to land in the direction as the first person down on your load. You are taught that training.
Does this mean that at your DZ, the FJC teaches FMD as standard or is it specified that it is DZ specific?


In reply to:
If you don't follow the rules, that is an individual problem, not a rules problem.
I can certainly agree with that.


danornan  (D 11308)

Oct 13, 2010, 5:56 AM
Post #137 of 285 (847 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

Way too many delusional people. This is not in direct response to anyone, so unless the shoe fits, please ignore!

The FOD (First One Down) does not work for several reasons, unless you are doing 4-way out of a small Cessna! Please try to face REALITY as it IS and not as you'd like it to be. This thought process will will continue to keep getting people under a good working canopy killed.

Can't think of any reason to not land a parachute like an airplane. Even gliders must enter the pattern and cannot do hook turns or swoop a pond in the LZ.

Have a set, agreed upon pattern for the LZ and enforce it. You might have to enter the pattern late or downwind, but in the words of some organizers, "Suck it up cupcake."


Ron

Oct 13, 2010, 7:41 AM
Post #138 of 285 (829 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Typical lame comeback.

Typical lame attack from you. You ignore half of a post and act like the half you read was the *only* part. To acknowledge the whole post makes your rant moot and silly.... So you only pay attention to one sentence.

Quote:
OK, the "you're" was 2nd person plural intended for all FMD proponents, not 2nd personal singular. No need to puff up your chest on piloting skills. I should have been more specific.

Typical... You run your mouth then when asked to put up, you run away. Name the event or quit running your mouth.

I don't know what's up your butt. But you ignore half a post just to start a fight and make accusations you are unwilling to back while throwing childish insults.


(This post was edited by Ron on Oct 13, 2010, 8:08 AM)


Communications

Oct 13, 2010, 12:00 PM
Post #139 of 285 (796 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
USPA Executive Director Ed Scott used his “Gearing Up” editorial in the October 2010 Parachutist magazine to discuss the high percentage of skydiving fatalities in the US in 2010 attributed to canopy issues…

I’m pleased to see that someone reads Gearing Up! Smile Seriously, we’re glad this discussion is taking place because, as someone here said, this is a community-wide problem and it’s going to take all of us to reverse the trend of canopy-related accidents. USPA has begun to collect a full range of ideas that can be considered by all stakeholders—skydivers, instructors, S&TAS, DZOs, dealers, and gear manufacturers among them. Read my blog about the issue, and that will lead you to our new web page where you can monitor and participate in the discussion.

Ed Scott
USPA


danornan  (D 11308)

Oct 13, 2010, 1:55 PM
Post #140 of 285 (768 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Communications] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

The irrational fear of landing downwind has led to hook turns too close to the ground and caused needless deaths to canopy pilots and innocent bystanders.

Maybe landing down wind should be, if it isn't already, part of the introductory canopy course that is being discussed.

This won't solve all of the landing issues, but will go a long way in helping, along with initiating at all DZ's, a fixed landing pattern.

Eliminating hook turns below 1,000 feet, except in a designated area will also play a major part in preventing landing deaths.


theonlyski  (D License)

Oct 13, 2010, 5:38 PM
Post #141 of 285 (759 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danornan] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Maybe landing down wind should be, if it isn't already, part of the introductory canopy course that is being discussed.

Or possibly requiring a couple (under controlled circumstances) for your a-license under canopy work.


craigbey  (C 31991)

Oct 13, 2010, 5:53 PM
Post #142 of 285 (756 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danornan] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The FOD (First One Down) does not work for several reasons, unless you are doing 4-way out of a small Cessna

I don't think the FOD rule works at small DZ's either.

FOD may be OK for a few very unique DZ's that have stong and fast variations in wind speed / direction, but how many DZ's are actually like that? How often do these conditions really mandate the use of the FOD rule -- or eliminate the possibility of using a pre-determined landing pattern and landing direction?

Those are honest questions for anyone at a DZ that uses the FOD rule. If it works at your DZ, that's cool. I'm perfectly happy following the local rules at any DZ and landing in the direction of the FOD even if it means changing my flight pattern or landing downwind.

But for most DZ's, establishing a pre-determined landing pattern and landing direction is more appropriate.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 13, 2010, 6:56 PM
Post #143 of 285 (743 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danornan] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

>Maybe landing down wind should be, if it isn't already, part of
>the introductory canopy course that is being discussed.

Definitely. There are times when landing downwind can be deadly (i.e. 15kt winds) but being able to land in light downwinds is a critical skill - since light and variable winds are common at many DZ's.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Oct 13, 2010, 7:19 PM
Post #144 of 285 (737 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Communications] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Read my blog about the issue, and that will lead you to our new web page where you can monitor and participate in the discussion.

Don't take this personally, but how about you read this web page? This discussion has been going on here for years. Literally years.

Several posters on this board, myself included, have made attempts to bring the thoughts and ideas exchanged here to the USPA, and we have all consistantly been told, 'Thanks, but no thanks' by the fine folks on the BOD.

Go check out your blog? How about you spend a few hours and read what we've all been 'blogging' about here for years, and finally get off your duff and do something about it. I think I can safely say that any idea worth considering has been hashed and rehashed ad-nauseum on these very boards.

Read up, take your pick, and make something happen already. You wanted to be the man in charge, well congratulations, you got it. Now do something with it.


Ron

Oct 13, 2010, 8:02 PM
Post #145 of 285 (726 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craigbey] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
FOD may be OK for a few very unique DZ's that have stong and fast variations in wind speed / direction, but how many DZ's are actually like that? How often do these conditions really mandate the use of the FOD rule -- or eliminate the possibility of using a pre-determined landing pattern and landing direction?

And what if while in your pattern you see that everyone else is landing 90* off what you thought was discussed.... Are you going to follow your plan come hell or high water, or follow the people below you and blend into the pattern?


fasted3  (D 30104)

Oct 13, 2010, 8:37 PM
Post #146 of 285 (718 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

Some time back I tried to address this problem, and offered my solution. I still think it's a good idea. Here is the thread:

http://www.dropzone.com/...post=3608467#3608467


DocPop  (C License)

Oct 13, 2010, 8:56 PM
Post #147 of 285 (703 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Maybe landing down wind should be, if it isn't already, part of
>the introductory canopy course that is being discussed.

Definitely. There are times when landing downwind can be deadly (i.e. 15kt winds) but being able to land in light downwinds is a critical skill - since light and variable winds are common at many DZ's.

Just to clarify - landing downwind in a 15kt wind can be accomplished perfectly safely as I and countless others have proved.


Halfpastniner  (D 30747)

Oct 13, 2010, 9:16 PM
Post #148 of 285 (700 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
>Maybe landing down wind should be, if it isn't already, part of
>the introductory canopy course that is being discussed.

Definitely. There are times when landing downwind can be deadly (i.e. 15kt winds) but being able to land in light downwinds is a critical skill - since light and variable winds are common at many DZ's.

Just to clarify - landing downwind in a 15kt wind can be accomplished perfectly safely as I and countless others have proved.

You really think he doesnt know that? 15 kt plus the speed of a canopy could be fatal if you flew into something.


craigbey  (C 31991)

Oct 14, 2010, 3:30 AM
Post #149 of 285 (681 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

As I said in my prior post ...

Quote:
I'm perfectly happy following the local rules at any DZ and landing in the direction of the FOD even if it means changing my flight pattern or landing downwind.

Again, if it works for your DZ, that's cool.

Most other DZ's -- and many people -- will get better results using a pre-determined landing pattern and landing direction.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Oct 14, 2010, 4:23 AM
Post #150 of 285 (672 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re:USPA and the canopy issue [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You ignore half of a post and act like the half you read was the *only* part.
Count 'em Ron. Only two parts.

Quote:
OK, the "you're" was 2nd person plural intended for all FMD proponents, not 2nd personal singular. No need to puff up your chest on piloting skills. I should have been more specific.

In reply to:
Typical... You run your mouth then when asked to put up, you run away. Name the event or quit running your mouth.
Sorry you see it that way even after the clarification. You choose your own colored glasses.

In reply to:
quit running your mouth.
So, as usual, the chest puffing is your normal SOP, eh? Can't handle discussion without it?

In reply to:
... just to start a fight
You can read into it anything you want. Choose your own viewpoint. Your posts seem to indicate an angry young man. Float your own boat.

Bottom line: Your FMD rule causes more problems than it solves. Take it or leave it.


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Oct 14, 2010, 4:36 AM)


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)