Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions?

 


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 5, 2003, 4:52 AM
Post #1 of 131 (4948 views)
Shortcut
New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? Can't Post

Hi everyone,

In The Netherlands, a new canopy regulation has gone into effect. What are your opinions?

Blue Ones
Paul Renting


RULES For Canopy choice

In art. 501 of the dutch Safety Regulations, a new canopy regulation is introduced. It states that anyone who wants to jump with a certain canopy and by choice that canopy changes from one experience category to another one, has to obey certain rules.

The rules are as follows:
Every canopy is assigned to a certain category. This category is assigned based on type (see appendix), it’s size and also it’s wingload which it will have in combination with the jumper.

The five categories are:

I : assigned type; wingload max.1,1; size min. 170 sqft
II : assigned type; wingload max.1,1; size min. 170 sqft
III : assigned type; wingload max.1,3; size min. 150 sqft
IV : assigned type; wingload max.1,5; size min. 120 sqft
V : no limitations

Jumpers are assigned to five experience categories. These categories are based on total number of jumps, but also de number of jumps in the last 12 months.

I : Less than 25 jumps
II : 25 to 100 jumps
III : 100 to 500 jumps; At least 25 in the last 12 months
IV : 500 to 1000 jumps; At least 50 in the last 12 months
V : Over 1000 jumps; At least 100 jumps in the last 12 months

A jumper, who wants to jump a canopy from category I, II, III, IV, or V is only allowed to jump that canopy if he, or she, at least is assigned to the appropriate experience category.
For the type assignment of each (brand, type) canopy, the regulators are advised by a technical committee, which updates the list as many times as needed, but at least once a year. When a certain type hasn’t been assigned to a category (yet), it should be handled as an category V canopy.

When a transition is made to a canopy assigned to a higher category, it is strongly advised to follow a canopy control program, like the one that is mandatory for the A or B license. (which I haven’t attached, but you can image a basic canopy control program), with the new canopy.

The system is visualized in the “Dutch Bulls-eye” which is attached.


Appendix:

Categorie I:

• Performance Designs: Navigator, PD F111 serie, Sabre
• Parachutes de France: Prima, Drakkar, Turbo
• Precision: Raven, Super Raven, Falcon
• PISA: Skymaster
• Paratec: Balans
• Flight Concepts: Maverick, Fury, Firelite, Cricket, Startrac, Sharpshuter, Raider, Maverone, Clipper, Manta, Cruislite
• NAA: Eagle 7 & 9
• Icarus: Student ZP7
• Chute Shop: Zepo Student

Categorie II (wingload max 1.1, > 25 jumps)

• Parachutes de France: Electra, Merit
• Paratec: Super 7, Quadra
• Performance Designs: Spectre, Silhouette
• Precision: Synergy
• Icarus: Omni

Categorie III (wingload max 1.3, > 100 jumps)

• Performance Designs: Sabre 2, Lightning
• Precision: Fusion
• Big-air sports: Lotus
• Aerodyne: Triathlon
• Icarus: Saffire 2
• Strong: Z-po
• Paratec: Quadra V-Tec
• PISA: Hornet
• Chute Shop: Zepo
• Performance Variables: Spark
• NAA: Parafoil
• Other pure PA canopies

Categorie IV (wingload max 1.5, > 500 jumps)

• Performance Designs: Stiletto, Vengeance
• Parachutes de France: BT, BT Pro, Springo
• Precision: Nitro
• Airtime: Jonathan, Jedei
• Big-air sports: Samurai
• Atair: Impuls, Ace, Cobalt
• Aerodyne: Diablo
• Fligth concepts: Pro serie
• Icarus: Crossfire
• Paratec: Factor
• Performance variables: Contrail
• PISA: Heatwave
• Chute Shop: Hurricane

Categorie V (wingload = unlimited, > 1000 jumps)

• Performance Designs: Velocity
• Parachutes de France: Ninja
• Precision: Xaos 21, Xaos 27
• Icarus: Extreme FX, VX
• Paratec: X-wing, Fandango
Attachments: dutch-bullseye.JPG (57.4 KB)


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Mar 5, 2003, 5:03 AM
Post #2 of 131 (4821 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Where would I fit into that at? 450 jumps, 250 in the last 12 months and about 180 out the door. It looks like a Cat 3 correct?

If so its about the pace I've taken to get to my current 136 at 1.42 loading. Its a slow progression and it places small people at a serious disadvantage by forcing them to stay on stuff like 170s that they might only be loading at .7 or .8 and get blown around in the slightest breeze.


nacmacfeegle  (D 11004)

Mar 5, 2003, 5:10 AM
Post #3 of 131 (4815 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

I'd say this would be more suited to being described as guidance, for instructors and DZ safety officers etc (don't know the Dutch term the UK is CCI, US is S&TA),as opposed to regulation.

I see the difficulty arising where a jumper is already in 'breach' of the regulation and may be forced to either break the 'law', lie about their experience level, or sell their canopy in order to continue jumping.
Will this 'rule' apply to visiting jumpers as well?


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 5, 2003, 5:16 AM
Post #4 of 131 (4811 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nacmacfeegle] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Ok, this is a rather common misconception, also here in The Netherlands.

You can't be already in breach of the regulations:
In art. 501 of the dutch Safety Regulations, a new canopy regulation is introduced. It states that anyone who wants to jump with a certain canopy and by choice that canopy changes from one experience category to another one, has to obey certain rules.

The rules only apply when you change from 1 canopy to another and by doing that also change to a higher category.


rhino  (D 22500)

Mar 5, 2003, 5:25 AM
Post #5 of 131 (4807 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think you can blanket govern canopy pilots like that. It wouldn't fly in the US.

Rhino


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 5, 2003, 6:06 AM
Post #6 of 131 (4784 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Paul,

How's this:

I have 266 jumps (cat III).
I jump a safire (cat III).
It's 135 sqft (cat IV).
My WL is 1.18 (cat III).

Now what?
Does this place me in cat III or IV?

I presume I can jump say a safire 120 without changing categories.

What if:
I want to jump a cat IV chute (Stiletto 120, or bigger)? Am I changing categories or not?


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Mar 5, 2003, 6:07 AM
Post #7 of 131 (4784 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

There is always the possibility that this could\would have to fly in the US if the FAA takes interest in skydiving for some reason. The possibility of needing actual ratings to fly different levels of canopies is always there. All it takes is alot more incidents and then some one will have to step in to save us from ourselves.


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 5, 2003, 6:17 AM
Post #8 of 131 (4780 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Sas,

I thought we talked about it, but here goes:

If we say you now jump in cat IV, based on the size of your canopy, you won't be changing category when you switch to a stiletto 120, so you can chose that canopy.


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 5, 2003, 6:17 AM
Post #9 of 131 (4781 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

And nobody could so far explain to me why you now need 100 jumps to jump a Triathlon, but you can jump a Spectre/Silhouette and stuff with 25 jumps and you can even start out on a Sabre????

I also think you don't need 100 jumps for a PA chute or a Lightning, either...

Personally I really do think 500 jumps for a Stiletto and stuff is okay, for most people. But I think the easier canopy list can use some work.


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 5, 2003, 6:17 AM
Post #10 of 131 (4781 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Where would I fit into that at? 450 jumps, 250 in the last 12 months and about 180 out the door. It looks like a Cat 3 correct?

No you'd be cat IV because of your WL and canopy type, for which you'd need 50 jumps more.

In reply to:
If so its about the pace I've taken to get to my current 136 at 1.42 loading. Its a slow progression and it places small people at a serious disadvantage by forcing them to stay on stuff like 170s that they might only be loading at .7 or .8 and get blown around in the slightest breeze.

The point is that smaller chutes at a conservative WL are faster than larger chutes at that same WL. I get that. Only I didn't think my Spectre 150 at 1:1 at 75 jumps was all that big a deal....... not allowed anymore. And I am definitely not the lightest girl at our DZ. I know 2 girls who got a 120 for a first canopy (triathlon, sabre), both at a WL < 1.


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 5, 2003, 6:19 AM
Post #11 of 131 (4779 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Yeah, I know, that's what you said. Harm says not, tho. And he's the one I gotta listen to. Maybe not everything is clear yet, for everybody. Sure isn't for me...


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 5, 2003, 6:24 AM
Post #12 of 131 (4773 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Talk to him again, cause I just discussed this with him monday...


BPO  (D 87411)

Mar 5, 2003, 8:15 AM
Post #13 of 131 (4721 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey Paul,

Last weekend I talked to one of the EC/TC members, I understood that everyone who chooses a new canopy should do that while following the posted rules.

So, for Saskia, that would mean she can keep on jumping her Saffire135, but once she chooses to buy another canopy, she'll have to obey the new rules (which would place her in cat. III ).

Right? Wrong?


rtroup  (D License)

Mar 5, 2003, 9:01 AM
Post #14 of 131 (4695 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

So according to this someone just off student status couldn't jump mains like the sabre2, safire2 or spectre even if the are loading it under 1.1 becouse these canopies are listed in categories 2 and 3? Even though these canopies are recommended as good first mains at lower wingloadings and some are used as student mains at some dropzones. Is this a false statement?

This could be good as guidelines from the uspa if the list is done over a little but if people are already going to ignore the advice of fellow jumpers and the S&TA's, and jump canopies they are not ready for, why would they follow guidelines from uspa? I don't know how I feel about them being mandatory rules but if they were it would shore save some lives and lots of broken bones.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 5, 2003, 9:06 AM
Post #15 of 131 (4690 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

The Dutch have a good idea. Their new system mimics a similar system that the Australian Parachute Federation used for about 8 years.
Remember folks, this is only a RECOMMENDATION. It provides guidelines for instructors, coaches, safety officers, etc. who are trying to talk young jumpers out of femuring.
Australian DZOs, instructors, etc. only get hard-nosed about guidelines when over-achievers flagrantly ignore guidelines, look like they are going to femur and tell coaches, etc. to "f**k off."
The Dutch system will only become law if skydivers continue femuring in at the current rate and the public gets scared.
The Dutch wisely "grandfathered" in a bunch of non-conformists by only insisting on conformity when people CHANGE canopies.
Finally, I agree with the idea of formal canopy control classes when people change categories.


AggieDave  (D License)

Mar 5, 2003, 9:10 AM
Post #16 of 131 (4688 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Lets use me for an example. I have 360 jumps, I jump a Heatwave 170, but my wingloading is just a hair under 1.7:1. If the rules were instantly applied to me, would I have to go out and buy a new container and a new reserve/main to be in the rules or would I be exempt?


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 5, 2003, 9:13 AM
Post #17 of 131 (4682 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Remember folks, this is only a RECOMMENDATION. .

No it's not. It's already mandatory.


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 5, 2003, 9:15 AM
Post #18 of 131 (4680 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Lets use me for an example. I have 360 jumps, I jump a Heatwave 170, but my wingloading is just a hair under 1.7:1. If the rules were instantly applied to me, would I have to go out and buy a new container and a new reserve/main to be in the rules or would I be exempt?

Everybody can keep jumping what they already have. It's only when you change canopies and would thereby end up in a higher category, that you will have to meet the requirements for that category.


(This post was edited by dragon2 on Mar 5, 2003, 9:23 AM)


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 5, 2003, 9:17 AM
Post #19 of 131 (4676 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rtroup] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So according to this someone just off student status couldn't jump mains like the sabre2, safire2 or spectre even if the are loading it under 1.1 becouse these canopies are listed in categories 2 and 3? Even though these canopies are recommended as good first mains at lower wingloadings and some are used as student mains at some dropzones. Is this a false statement?

No it is a true statement.


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 5, 2003, 9:21 AM
Post #20 of 131 (4673 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

What I do find kinda weird, is that nobody's mentioning reserve canopies (again).

Which means I may have to jump a 150 sqft Spectre but can have a PD 106R???


rigging65  (D 21921)

Mar 5, 2003, 9:24 AM
Post #21 of 131 (4665 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm probably gonna take some flaming for this, but here goes: I think this is a great idea for a system...there is some tweeking that needs to happen IMO (basically to accommodate lighter weight persons), but overall I think it's way cool. I've been an advocate for Canopy ratings for a long time, but since US Jumpers (just like US citizens in general) wouldn't know a good thing if it smacked them in the head, it'll be a cold day in hell before we see it.

We're all so caught up in "I can do whatever the hell I want" that we seldom stop to think "Hmmm, if there's a rule saying I can't do this, maybe there's a reason."

Now, I'm not saying we should get rid of HP canopies, but rating them wouldn't be a bad idea...except for all of us asses out there that would feel that "some damn agency is always regulating my life!!!"...heaven forbid we educate some people and save some lives. I fly a highly loaded HP canopy, and I got there through education over time, not luck or "getting away" with it.

You want to fly the hot rod, make more jumps, spend more time in the sport, LEARN MORE!

Flame away...


AndyMan  (D 25698)

Mar 5, 2003, 9:37 AM
Post #22 of 131 (4656 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with the concept. There are way too many people in this sport doing things way too early. Drop by the video forum and notice the guy with 8 jumps asking which helmet he should buy, for example.

It's becoming abundantly clear that dz's can not be trusted to push lower time jumpers into picking appropriate gear.

"Recomendations" are meaningless if dropzones are not going to follow them.

Now, that said - these specific rules seem foolish. The Sabre2 is being used very effectively as a student first jump canopy in the US, but the dutch say you must have a hundred jumps to jump one. That doesn't make sense, to me.

Likewise, that you can jump a sabre on your first jump, but not a spectre? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either.

These specific regulations seem to lock in an entire nation to one groups idea of what an appropirate canopy is, even though in reality there are some wildly divergent and well justified alternate views.

Any regulation that is adopted must be flexible enough to allow canopy instruction to mature, such as using a Sabre2 as a first jump canopy. Likewise, it must avoid contrived comparisons of "safety", unless those are well established.

This specific set of rules seems poorly thought out, poorly constructed, and is being poorly implemented.

_Am


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Mar 5, 2003, 9:43 AM
Post #23 of 131 (4645 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rigging65] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

I totally agree. A bit of tweaking and the system is a good one. I'd bump it to a 1.4 loadin at the class break and lower the jumps to 400, and maybe add in one at 1.6 and 600 jumps. Make the canopy list for the 600 one include all the X braced stuff, and reserve loadings of over 1.5 require proof of a reserve ride (either as a main or as a reserve).

A system like this will help promote canopy skills since people will not be afraid of their canopies and might actually learn to fly the wing instead of the wing flying them. Its a lot like the people that buy a X braced canopy at a high wingloading that don't want to hook but still want to swoop far. Its the price you have to pay sometimes...


AggieDave  (D License)

Mar 5, 2003, 9:44 AM
Post #24 of 131 (4643 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I'd bump it to a 1.4 loadin at the class break and lower the jumps to 400, and maybe add in one at 1.6 and 600 jumps

Gee, that sounds familar...Wink

Brian's system is a great system and we're actually implementing it at my DZ for students/low time jumpers.


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Mar 5, 2003, 9:54 AM
Post #25 of 131 (4633 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

So you going to go back up to something in the 1.4 range? If not is'nt that like calling the kettle black?


HeatherB  (B License)

Mar 5, 2003, 9:59 AM
Post #26 of 131 (1191 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Brian's system is a great system and we're actually implementing it at my DZ for students/low time jumpers.


Playing devil's advocate here....

Brian's system is great, but you don't follow it yourself, right? Why not?

If Brian's system is so great why are you not jumping something with a less than a 1.4. wingload? Or, do you not consider yourself a "low-time jumper?"

1.7:1 with 370 jumps...well beyond what most, including Brian, would deem reasonable.

(Yes, I'm picking on you, but I only b/c I like you and I care)

blue skies,
devil's advocate


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 5, 2003, 10:02 AM
Post #27 of 131 (1188 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BPO] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi,

Right and wrong. Everyone has to obey the rules, but the rules only are in effect when the jumper change category. I'll continue now in dutch (sorry for the english speaking)

Het BVR artikel 501, lid 10:
Lid 10: De sportparachutist, die wil gaan springen met een parachute uit een hogere ervaringscategorie, dan
de parachute waarmee hij tot op dat moment heeft gesprongen, mag dat alleen indien hij voldoet aan de
daarvoor in BVR bijlage A gestelde criteria..

Saskia zal in dit geval (de stilleto 120) niet met een hogere categorie gaan springen dan ze nu al doet.


AggieDave  (D License)

Mar 5, 2003, 10:23 AM
Post #28 of 131 (1178 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So you going to go back up to something in the 1.4 range? If not is'nt that like calling the kettle black?

Nope and yup. I've also spent a lot of money getting a lot of canopy coaching. Its not fool proof due to lack of general experience, but it could be worst.


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 5, 2003, 10:33 AM
Post #29 of 131 (1177 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Saskia zal in dit geval (de stilleto 120) niet met een hogere categorie gaan springen dan ze nu al doet.

Yeah, well, all that is moot, as I'm not even allowed to jump a Lightning 126 anywhere in the near future Unsure categories or no, a Stiletto 120 would definately be out of the question... Note: I don't even want to jump one, so relax Wink


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 5, 2003, 10:35 AM
Post #30 of 131 (1171 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AndyMan] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

You shouldn't concentrate on the list of canopies to much. It's only a first list and, as mentioned in my fipo it should be update regulary, at least once a year. I personally think the Spark should be beside the sabre (1) and a triathlon should be beside the spectre.

Currently the sabre2 is thought of as a crossing between the stilletto and a sabre, and it is judge accordingly. When needed this can be adjusted whenever the list is updated. Also the spectre is considered the be a good starter canopy, but not suited for the first jumps, that's why it's a cat II canopy (25 jumps and more).

This specific set of rules seems poorly thought out, poorly constructed, and is being poorly implemented.
Ok, I know it's not US made, but aren't you a little harsh here Tongue? It's been in the making for over a year, there were 2 national input day (mandatory for every1 holding an instruction license) and it has been implemented last weekend, so I it's a little early to judge that factor... Crazy


sandi

Mar 5, 2003, 10:39 AM
Post #31 of 131 (1169 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

I just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. I have 300 jumps, all in less than a year. The 109 I currently jump at 1.2 falls into the correct wingloading. But since the minimum canopy size for this category is 150, I'd be stuck with a .88 loading until 500 jumps!?! Umm, I don't think so!

This puts lighter skydivers at a disadvantage as far as improving their canopy skills. Most smaller women can't turn with their risers at low wingloadings. So that limits how much they can learn, and can also be a safety issue because they can't quickly turn after opening.

It's also safer/easier to land going forward than going backward or straight down. Lighter jumpers will be more limited by wind conditions. This could discourage people. If they go to the dz every weekend and never get to jump because it's too windy for such a low loading, they may just stop going to the dz.

I'm not saying this guideline is bad, but it may be better used as just that, a guideline. It doesn't take into account that not everyone is the same size. Wingloading is only one consideration in choice of canopy size. A suggestion would be to categorize further by weight groups.

I'm not an advocate of downsizing quickly, but keeping a segment of skydivers at basically a student wingloading for 500 jumps isn't beneficial either. I think the issue of downsizing involves many, many different factors and each case is very individual.

I'm glad those of us in the US get to enjoy less regulation than some other countries!


katecooper  (D 7333)

Mar 5, 2003, 10:45 AM
Post #32 of 131 (1168 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Greetings, DZ Denizens;

What a great list. Thanks to Saskia for printing it here. I've often wondered how some of the foreign canopies performed compared to canopies I'm more familiar with. While the list may not be perfect, this certainly gives me a good starting point for comparing canopies and wingloadings.

Also, for all the grumbling on wingloadings, I'd say that the vast majority of jumpers (yes, even you--gentle readers) are using canopies at too great a wingloading for their current experience.

I've found that the "Peter Principal" of canopies is to size down until you find the canopy you can not land consistently in a safe manner, and then crow with pleaseure that you finally have the "right" canopy and that you'll no doubt "grow into it" in time.

I'm a cat V jumper and I quite happily am jumping Cat IV and Cat III canopies although I have experience in Cat V wings as well. My wingloading is Cat IV to Cat V (depending on whether I'm wearing weights or not) I'm here for the long run. How about you? :-)

Good job, Netherlands, for putting together this information.

kate


(This post was edited by katecooper on Mar 5, 2003, 2:34 PM)


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 5, 2003, 10:45 AM
Post #33 of 131 (1164 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sandi] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

A number of factors have led to the 170 sq feet minimum. Most important 2:

1) a 120 sq feet flies ALOT faster at 1.2 then a 170 sq feet at 1.2
2) It's very rare to find someone in the Netherlands that only weighs (body weight) 105 pounds.


rigging65  (D 21921)

Mar 5, 2003, 11:19 AM
Post #34 of 131 (1153 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AndyMan] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It's becoming abundantly clear that dz's can not be trusted to push lower time jumpers into picking appropriate gear.

I agree that it would be nice if DZs would try to enforce some standard of control, but let's be honest, the problem is with the people selling the canopies to individual jumpers.

So we blame the dealers, but, the ones we really need to consider are the trunk-dealers with no overhead to cover and no misgivings about selling anything to anyone. MOST reputable shops will do their best to sell the jumper what they need, not what they want. But in order to keep the lights on (especially in this world where you can ALWAYS find something cheaper on-line) a shop is forced to bend to try and keep their doors open.

Why is it more expensive to buy from a shop? Do you think those sewing machines are free? How about the wages to keep someone on staff who knows what the hell they're talking about, not just what the print ads say? What do you get for your money? Experience and the solidarity of knowing that shop will be there to help you in the future, because you supported it with your business.

I can't tell you how hard it is to deal, day in and day out, with people coming in with some on-line quote for gear that simply blows us out of the water. Not that this "company" has ever had contact with the potential buyer they gave the quote to, nor do they care in most cases.

But this is business, so screw morality, just sell the damn products! Right?

You basically get chastised for trying to guide someone in the right direction because, "They're adults and make up their own mind about what they want to fly" then you get laughed at when you quote them...even when you explain the extended service they gain from working with a reputable shop and the help they'll have if/when something goes wrong with their gear and it needs to be fixed or sent back. Then you get yelled at when you won't bend over backwards to fix their broken equipment, that they didn't buy from you, on Friday afternoon at 4PM! If you want to blame someone, blame the folks selling out of their trunks, cutting the margins down to nothing and not caring who they sell to in order to make $50.

Be part of the solution, people, not part of the problem. Shops exist to be there to service you and your gear for the years to come in your skydiving career...don't run them out of business by buying from some 'dude' and saving $100...Unsure

That's enough, I'll get off my soapbox now......


sandi

Mar 5, 2003, 11:30 AM
Post #35 of 131 (1145 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
1) a 120 sq feet flies ALOT faster at 1.2 then a 170 sq feet at 1.2.

I absolutely agree with this statement. I tell people that all the time when I hear smaller people wanting to get a 120 or 135 at 50 jumps just because someone told them to have a 1.1 loading. And I did jump a 150 until I had 100 jumps, then jumped a 135 and 120 for the next 200 jumps.

I'm just saying that there are people who do have low exit weights and keeping them at under 1.0 loadings until 500 jumps isn't helping them learn.

Quote:
2) It's very rare to find someone in the Netherlands that only weighs (body weight) 105 pounds.

It's probably not as rare as you think. Actually I weigh 110 pounds and my gear weighs 22 lbs. Yes, that includes everything. Smaller people have smaller rigs, helmets, shoes etc. so it adds up to less. Of course if I had to jump a 150 I'd have a larger rig, so the loading would be a little higher. There are probably more lighter people than you think. I'm light because I'm short, I'm certainly not super skinny.

Anyway, even if it is rare, what about those few rare people? I know a lot of people who weigh under 110 pounds. Shouldn't they be taken into consideration in the regulation. A good portion of women skydivers do have lower exit weights may be adversely affected by these regulations.

Just looking out for the small people out there.


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 5, 2003, 11:38 AM
Post #36 of 131 (1133 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sandi] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

The few sadly have to suffer, but in 6 years time I never met some1 in the skydive communitee in The Netherlands who would suffer.... Sly Don't forget average height is aprox. 5 feet 12 for women here....


sandi

Mar 5, 2003, 11:55 AM
Post #37 of 131 (1123 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

okay, okay, I do realize that I'm smaller that average. I'm just hoping that if by chance there is a 100 pound jumper there that you might make an exception for her after watching her go backwards under a 150 for a couple hundred jumps.

I'm going to keep jumping my 109 and be damn happy that I'm allowed to do so!Smile


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 5, 2003, 11:56 AM
Post #38 of 131 (1121 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The few sadly have to suffer, but in 6 years time I never met some1 in the skydive communitee in The Netherlands who would suffer.... Sly Don't forget average height is aprox. 5 feet 12 for women here....

Paul,

What about Sveta and Claudia..? Don't know what YOU consider small, but.... well..... Wink

They both have a WL < 1 on a 120.


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 5, 2003, 11:58 AM
Post #39 of 131 (1117 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

I didn't say we don't have any light jumpers, just said no1 would really suffer... Tongue get my drift? Cool


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Mar 5, 2003, 12:12 PM
Post #40 of 131 (1113 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sandi] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'm just hoping that if by chance there is a 100 pound jumper there that you might make an exception for her after watching her go backwards under a 150 for a couple hundred jumps.
100 pound body weight, plus 20-odd pounds gear.. plus however much weight she's going to need to wear to stay down with the bigger folks - I'd figure that 100 pounder's exit weight at closer to 140. On a 170 that's about a .8 wingloading.

I put over 300 jumps on canopies that I loaded at about .8. Did I back up a few times? Sure I did - when the winds were over about 12-15 mph. There's a real easy fix for that - stay on the ground when the winds pick up. High wind conditions aren't the best thing for a sub-100 jump novice to be landing in regardless of wingloading - and if you look around the dz on days like that you might be surprised to find some of the most experienced jumpers, who jump much higher wingloadings, staying on the ground too.

Other than a couple of canopy rankings that I disagree with (Triathlon in Cat III but Spectre in Cat II), I think the guidelines posted here are great and I would love to see USPA come up with something similar (guidelines, not requirements). But, I'm a Cat IV jumper flying a Cat II canopy at a Cat II wingloading... like Kate said, I'm in this for the long run.


Ron

Mar 5, 2003, 12:32 PM
Post #41 of 131 (1094 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Well, we should look at this, and not bicker about what canopy is on what list.

I think it should be done jump # to wingload just like Brian G says.

TYPE of canopy does matter, but less I think than WINGLOAD.

SIZE being a function that effects WINGLOAD.

So I would have rules to govern wingload.

It would be the first, and easiest step.

Ron


sandi

Mar 5, 2003, 12:34 PM
Post #42 of 131 (1093 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
High wind conditions aren't the best thing for a sub-100 jump novice to be landing in regardless of wingloading

I agree. And I'm usually the one staying on the ground in high winds. My concern is the 100-500 jump category. There is a big difference in canopy skill between 100 and 500 jumps. I only have 300 jumps but I know my skills are a lot better now than they were at 100 jumps (and I'm not saying I'm an expert now, far from it). But should someone with 300-500 jumps have to have a loading under 1.0?

As far as the extra weights go. Yes, I have to wear weights if I'm belly flying (which is rare) and if I am wearing weights I jump my 120 instead of my 109. I don't wear weights freeflying and have no problem keeping up with larger people.

As I said I don't have a problem with the regulations for people under 100 jumps. I didn't have a loading over 1.0 until about 150 jumps. Lighter people are going to have much more responsiveness from a canopy at a lower loading. But being forced to have a .8 or .9 loading at 400 jumps just doesn't seem necessary.


Premier Remster  (C License)

Mar 5, 2003, 12:46 PM
Post #43 of 131 (1081 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Arent I a poster boy for this....Smile

Cat IV jupmer jumping a Cat IV canopy at a Cat IV wingload.....

Guess Atair wont be able to market their canopy as a student/begineer one in the NL.....

and yeah.. the Triatlon seams funny in a cat III...


amir1967  (B License)

Mar 5, 2003, 12:50 PM
Post #44 of 131 (1076 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

I must say I enjoy this topic and even more happy that I all ready have my own gear ,so I can keep jumping it .
Now for a new jumper yes it is a bad luck (maybe),they will really have to start and progress slowly (hopefully safely) then before those rules

another question is what is the ruling if you jump a canopy which is two class above you´r class and you want to down-size


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 5, 2003, 12:57 PM
Post #45 of 131 (1065 views)
Shortcut
Re: [amir1967] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

As long as you don't go into a category wich is higher than your current category you're flying in now, you can downsize. Do remember that an instructor can always ground you anyways on article 501 part 1 of the Dutch Safety regulations


AndyMan  (D 25698)

Mar 5, 2003, 2:02 PM
Post #46 of 131 (1029 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
This specific set of rules seems poorly thought out, poorly constructed, and is being poorly implemented.
Ok, I know it's not US made, but aren't you a little harsh here ? It's been in the making for over a year, there were 2 national input day (mandatory for every1 holding an instruction license) and it has been implemented last weekend, so I it's a little early to judge that factor...

I'm not made in the US either, but my girlfriend probably agrees with you on that. Tongue If so many people had a hand in its design, it may be a case of TOO many people designing something.

Unless the inconsistencies in that canopy list are sorted out quickly, I suspect they'll have a lot of pushback.

That said, I do like the idea.

Edited to add, I am a class 4 jumper, jumping a class 4 canopy, at a class 5 wingloading.

_Am


(This post was edited by AndyMan on Mar 5, 2003, 2:06 PM)


Push  (A 10205)

Mar 5, 2003, 2:11 PM
Post #47 of 131 (1022 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Instead of basing it so much on jump numbers, maybe the jump number restricitions should be relaxed and it should work similar to the USPA licenses? There are licenses for freefall, why not canopy? Give out instructor ratings for canopy flight and have them administer tests to condidates that want to move up. And make sure that everything is waverable in special cases. I don't think an 85lbs person is made safer by forcing her to jump a student wingloading for 1000 jumps and then letting her downsize to a tiny x-braced.


CanuckInUSA  (D 26396)

Mar 5, 2003, 2:14 PM
Post #48 of 131 (1018 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AndyMan] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I am a class 4 jumper, jumping a class 4 canopy, at a class 5 wingloading.

I am a class 3 jumper, jumping a class 3 canopy, currently flying at a class 3 wing loading (but soon will be jumping something in between class 3 and class 4 wing loading). So I'm not as radical as some think? Angelic I'm just a class 3 type of guy ... Tongue


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 5, 2003, 2:15 PM
Post #49 of 131 (1014 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Push] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

WinkWith a 85Lbs person I would question his/her medical examination.... Laugh


marcin  (D License)

Mar 5, 2003, 2:19 PM
Post #50 of 131 (1008 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

<Their new system mimics a similar system that the Australian Parachute Federation used for about 8 years>

What is the Australian system?

M.


Push  (A 10205)

Mar 5, 2003, 2:20 PM
Post #51 of 131 (1034 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Actually, there are some people I heard about that weigh that much and jump. How does a 20 minute canopy ride sound?Wink The beauty of the bell curve is that it never reaches zero.

I'm just concerned that, while this makes the progression safer for the majority at the bump, it may make it more dangerous for the fringes of the curve. As it stands, the risk of skydiving is already marginal. These regulations may just be moving the risk from being evenly distributed across everyone to nothing for the "normal" people and more for the far ends of the curve. That just doesn't sound rightCrazy


sandi

Mar 5, 2003, 2:41 PM
Post #52 of 131 (1018 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
With a 85Lbs person I would question his/her medical examination....

Wow, so according to you, small people either don't exist or there is something physically wrong with them.

I'll give you an example. My sister is 5'0" tall and weighs 90 lbs. She's not a skydiver but she certainly could be if she chose to and there is a good chance she will in the future. Considering the fact that she runs marathons I'd say she's in in better physical condition than most skydivers.

There are very light people out there who are perfectly healthy, contrary to your belief.


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 5, 2003, 2:52 PM
Post #53 of 131 (1007 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sandi] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

uhm... please mind the smiles....


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Mar 5, 2003, 2:59 PM
Post #54 of 131 (1003 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
uhm... please mind the smiles....
Might be a good idea to limit the sarcasm to the Talkback forum... This is a topical forum; most people expect to read serious replies here.


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 5, 2003, 3:11 PM
Post #55 of 131 (998 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Ok on a serious note then:

(replying on the earlier post)

If 1 or 2 people in The Netherlands have to stay on the ground more often because of wind, and by doing that we can save the lot, I chose that option...


sandi

Mar 5, 2003, 3:22 PM
Post #56 of 131 (992 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

I guess I'm just tired of being part of the small minority that doesn't seem to matter to the people who make regulations like this.

This may be a good guideline for 80% of skydivers. But you still need to think about the 10% that are very light and also the 10% that are very heavy. A heavy jumper may have to stay on a 210 until they get to 500 jumps.

Why not take those people into consideration by adding a weight category. Lower the minimum canopy size slightly for people who are under a specified weight. Lower the max wingloading slightly for people over a specified weight.

I would be a category 3 jumper, on a category 3 canopy at a category 3 wingloading. Sounds good until you throw in the min canopy 150.


SunWukong  (A License)

Mar 5, 2003, 3:40 PM
Post #57 of 131 (984 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

It seems to me like lighter jumpers would be better served by having multiple sets of wingloading requirements rather than a flat-out limit on canopy size.

For instance, amend Cat II to allow no more than a 1.1 wingloading on canopies of 170 sq. ft or greater, and no more than a .9 wingloading on canopies of less than 170 sq. ft.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Mar 5, 2003, 3:57 PM
Post #58 of 131 (978 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sandi] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Lower the minimum canopy size slightly for people who are under a specified weight.

Have you read this? Should give you some insight as to why 1.0 on a 120 is far different than 1.0 on a 190 - and therefore why a 100 pound jumper might be a whole lot safer at .8 than at 1.1.

Personally, I don't see a problem with a .8 wingloading - yes, even for someone with 500 jumps.


relyon  (D 18973)

Mar 5, 2003, 4:22 PM
Post #59 of 131 (969 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Yeah, well, all that is moot, as I'm not even allowed to jump a Lightning 126 anywhere in the near future Unsure categories or no...

I've got quite a few jumps Lightning 126s in the 1.5-1.6 range. While I understand your frustration, I'm afraid I agree with the guideline regarding Lightnings specifically and the rest in general. It is not a sub-100 jump canopy at any wing loading.

Ask Henny Wiggers or Kees Topps about landing highly loaded (2+) 7-cell CRW canopies (mention Imatra).

Bob


relyon  (D 18973)

Mar 5, 2003, 4:50 PM
Post #60 of 131 (954 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sandi] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
1) a 120 sq feet flies ALOT faster at 1.2 then a 170 sq feet at 1.2.

I absolutely agree with this statement.
This is incorrect. The freestream velocity (V-infinity) of both canopies will be the same. The smaller canopy will be more responsive (which may be what you are referring to), but they'll both fly at the same speed. The smaller canopy will be less efficient than the larger due to scaling effects.

Bob


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Mar 5, 2003, 5:00 PM
Post #61 of 131 (945 views)
Shortcut
Re: [relyon] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/wingload.pdf


Quote:
1) a 120 sq feet flies ALOT faster at 1.2 then a 170 sq feet at 1.2.

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


I absolutely agree with this statement.

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

This is incorrect. The freestream velocity (V-infinity) of both canopies will be the same. The smaller canopy will be more responsive (which may be what you are referring to), but they'll both fly at the same speed. The smaller canopy will be less efficient than the larger due to scaling effects.

It is true, a 120 at 1:1 will be faster than a 190 at 1:1

Hook


Push  (A 10205)

Mar 5, 2003, 5:20 PM
Post #62 of 131 (939 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

From the document you linked to:

Quote:
II. General Concepts that are frequently misunderstood

A. Different canopy models of the same size may perform differently, but they will fly approximately the same speed. Wing loading is the biggest determinant of speed. A Stiletto 190 is not really faster than a Sabre 190, or even a PD 190! Other aspects of performance will be different, however. (Turn rate, glide angle, etc.) These differences may influence a person’s impression of speed.
B. A person evaluates a canopy’s speed according to their individual frame of reference, which has been created through their own, unique experiences.
Example: Jumper A and jumper B weigh the same, jump the same canopy, and have the same number of jumps. They may have completely opposite opinions of the speed and handling of their canopies. Why? Different frames of reference! The canopy may be the smallest one jumper A has flown. He may have chosen it to get more speed, quicker turns and hotter landings, and might feel that it’s a handful! Yet jumper B may have moved up one or two sizes to this canopy, to create more forgiving handling and easier landings than he had previously.

So the difference is not in the airspeed, but in the responsiveness. This is not surprising, since responsiveness really depends on the shape of the airfoil, ie, the way it's deflecting the air.

Quote:
A. Lighter jumpers face a greater challenge than heavier jumpers do when jumping typical first - jump student gear, due to very slow flight and sluggish controls.

1. Lighter students usually start at lighter wing loadings and very slow flight speed, compared to larger students, because they often use the same canopy.
2. The instructors are less likely to give a lighter student the attention to canopy control they deserve. It’s easier for an instructor to notice a slight problem with the larger student’s performance, and they are more likely to correct it. The instructor is likely to be less concerned about the lighter student, because the canopy is so slow that the landing is likely to be soft, even with poor technique, and the possibility of injury is remote.

Sounds like a claim that the person on the very low wingloading is not learning anything under that parachute. Seems to me that this implies, paradoxically, that there is such a thing as too small a wingloading, that is, a wingloading so small that the parachute does not need you to fly anymore.

Quote:
B. Lighter student graduates face considerably different challenges when they start downsizing.

1. Lighter students are normally encouraged to be more aggressive when down sizing, making much larger changes in wing loading than their heavier counterparts. Though the resulting speed may be similar or even less than that of a heavier novice, they’ve experienced a much bigger change in speed compared to what they started with.
2. Due to the fact that the smaller jumper will likely be transitioning to a smaller canopy than the larger jumper will, they’ll get quicker responsiveness from that canopy. Again, this is true even though they’re wing loading is probably lower.

So they need to progress differently from the average sized jumper. I read that as a claim that a large safety benefit is provided by helping that jumper downsize safely.

Quote:
V. Conclusions: As you can see, the answers to the questions in the quiz are all false. We must be very careful when discussing canopies with those who are downsizing. Do not recommend specific canopies to individuals without spending some time to learn about the jumper’s particular frame of reference. Assist others in making small changes in canopy size from what they are used to, and only if they’re ready to deal with the higher speeds and more agile handling.

What happens in this progression is that the 85lbs person is kept at < 1.0 wingloading and moderately large canopies until they reach 1000 jumps, and are then allowed to do whatever they want. While there is obvious merit in making their progressions gradual, seems to me that this is accomplishing the opposite. According to this article this kind of progression can prove disastrous.


sandi

Mar 5, 2003, 5:28 PM
Post #63 of 131 (937 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Have you read this? Should give you some insight as to why 1.0 on a 120 is far different than 1.0 on a 190

Yes, I have read that and I've referred to it previously in the forums. I also mentioned earlier in this thread that lighter people will get more responsiveness from a canopy at a lower wing loading. Which is why I didn't say to disregard minimum canopy size requirement. I certainly wouldn't want a 100 lb person to have a 1.3 loading at 200 jumps. I'm saying why not let the smaller person go down to a 135 so they can be progressing with their canopy skills.

I'm just going by what I've experienced as a lighter jumper. I have flown a 120 at 1.1 and yes I know it's turns faster than larger canopies at the same windloading but it's also not as fast or responsive as people here are implying. It's not like a 120 loaded at 1.5.

Quote:
and therefore why a 100 pound jumper might be a whole lot safer at .8 than at 1.1.

Personally, I don't see a problem with a .8 wingloading - yes, even for someone with 500 jumps.

Okay then, but don't just limit it to small jumpers. Make everyone have have a low wingloaing.


relyon  (D 18973)

Mar 5, 2003, 5:33 PM
Post #64 of 131 (937 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It is true, a 120 at 1:1 will be faster than a 190 at 1:1

Define "faster". Scaling effects on canopies cause minor (on the order of a few feet per second) differences at equal wingloading due to proportionately minor variations in lift and drag coeffiecients. I don't consider than "ALOT". If the difference were large, a jumper under a Lightning 193 wouldn't have a prayer trying to catch me under my equally loaded 126 to dock (I can assure you that's not the case). Any introductory aerodynamic text has all the derivations.

Bob


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Mar 5, 2003, 5:46 PM
Post #65 of 131 (925 views)
Shortcut
Re: [relyon] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Define "faster".


Higher top speed, more altitude lost in a 360, faster turns.

Hook


relyon  (D 18973)

Mar 5, 2003, 6:08 PM
Post #66 of 131 (914 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Higher top speed, more altitude lost in a 360, faster turns.

These are all very dependent on flying style because the flight is accellerated. I believe I know what you are referring to and that is what I meant by saying the smaller canopy would be more responsive.

Bob


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 5, 2003, 6:48 PM
Post #67 of 131 (896 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

>Brian's system is a great system and we're actually implementing it
> at my DZ for students/low time jumpers.

It's a good system, but please realize that 95% of the jumpers out there think they should be excluded from the system because they are unusually skilled; they usually find a way to exclude themselves. So unless we're willing to make it mandatory (and that would include you) I wouldn't place much hope in such a system.


AggieDave  (D License)

Mar 5, 2003, 6:53 PM
Post #68 of 131 (894 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

The main point is that it is going to be strictly inforced on our rental gear/student gear. Especially since we have some transition type canopies for some of our more advanced gear renters (Sabre2s), that could be loaded reasonibly well by a heavier jumper.

As for individual jumpers, that's similar to what it is at almost every DZ. Up to the descretion of the S&TA/DZO/DZ Staff. If some jumper shows up with a VX 14 or something crazy and doesn't have many jumps, then a long talk followed probably by a call to his/her previous DZ will be in order. Make sense?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 5, 2003, 7:02 PM
Post #69 of 131 (889 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

> it is going to be strictly inforced on our rental gear/student gear.

Have you had a problem with injuries due to overloading on rental gear?

>Up to the descretion of the S&TA/DZO/DZ Staff. If some jumper
> shows up with a VX 14 or something crazy and doesn't have many
> jumps, then a long talk followed probably by a call to his/her >previous DZ will be in order. Make sense?

Sorry, I thought we were talking about a new system.


kmcguffee  (C 26028)

Mar 5, 2003, 7:04 PM
Post #70 of 131 (888 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Push] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
There are licenses for freefall, why not canopy?

To me that makes a lot of sense. If we are really serious about reducing the number of deaths under canopy then something like that may work.


AggieDave  (D License)

Mar 5, 2003, 7:18 PM
Post #71 of 131 (885 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
> it is going to be strictly inforced on our rental gear/student gear.

Have you had a problem with injuries due to overloading on rental gear?

No, but we don't ever want to have that problem, so we're starting now. (which is early in the DZ game, we've only been open 1 year this month).


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 5, 2003, 10:02 PM
Post #72 of 131 (851 views)
Shortcut
Re: [relyon] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Yeah, well, all that is moot, as I'm not even allowed to jump a Lightning 126 anywhere in the near future Unsure categories or no...

I've got quite a few jumps Lightning 126s in the 1.5-1.6 range. While I understand your frustration, I'm afraid I agree with the guideline regarding Lightnings specifically and the rest in general. It is not a sub-100 jump canopy at any wing loading.

Ask Henny Wiggers or Kees Topps about landing highly loaded (2+) 7-cell CRW canopies (mention Imatra).

Bob

I did ask Henny, he said 100 jumps was kinda much!

We aren't talking about loading them that high tho! Team Teuge etc can do what they want of course, but I don't think there are many jumpers who can land a Lightning/Tri loaded that much with the brakes set short as well.

I started doing CREW at just over 100 jumps, I jumped a 1:1 loaded Lightning 143. Never saw the problem some people have landing it! No biggie. But then, I've jumped mostly 7 cells. I can imagine some problems/adjustments if you usually jump a HP canopy and have never jumped a 7 cell. A Lightning has so little forward speed. But then, your reserve would land kinda like that, no?


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Mar 5, 2003, 10:48 PM
Post #73 of 131 (841 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Push] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So the difference is not in the airspeed, but in the responsiveness.
The difference between a 120 loaded at 1.0 and a 190 loaded at 1.0 is the responsiveness, yes. Responsiveness kills and injures as often (or more often?) than pure speed does.
In reply to:
Sounds like a claim that the person on the very low wingloading is not learning anything under that parachute. Seems to me that this implies, paradoxically, that there is such a thing as too small a wingloading, that is, a wingloading so small that the parachute does not need you to fly anymore.
Sounds to me more like a wake-up call to instructors.

I've jumped a 421 sq ft tandem canopy solo - at about a .4 wingloading. Still required plenty of pilot input.

In reply to:
I read that as a claim that a large safety benefit is provided by helping that jumper downsize safely
Every jumper should have help in downsizing safely.

In reply to:
According to this article this kind of progression can prove disastrous.
I see your point. That's why I'd be in favor of something like this as a USPA produced guideline in the US - but not as a part of the BSR's. Even though I've been baggin' on sandi in this thread (don't hate me sandi! Not yet anyway! Wink), there will always be exceptions to the rules - people who don't fit the "norm." imho there needs to be room in the "rules" to accomodate them.


relyon  (D 18973)

Mar 5, 2003, 11:52 PM
Post #74 of 131 (830 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I did ask Henny, he said 100 jumps was kinda much!

Well, I respect Henny's opinion quite a bit (he's got multi-thousands of jumps more than I) and though I won't argue the point, I still won't recommend a Lightning at under 100 jumps. It's just a difference of opinion, but that might mean the difference between a stand up, a PLF, or breaking something. I've never broken anything yet and don't care to find out what it's like now.

In reply to:
I started doing CREW at just over 100 jumps, I jumped a 1:1 loaded Lightning 143. Never saw the problem some people have landing it! No biggie. But then, I've jumped mostly 7 cells. I can imagine some problems/adjustments if you usually jump a HP canopy and have never jumped a 7 cell. A Lightning has so little forward speed. But then, your reserve would land kinda like that, no?

CRW with just over 100 jumps? Very good. Welcome to the "dark" side! Pirate

Standard line lengths and low loadings are going to produce better landing characteristics in most any canopy. Shortlining (8') and higher loading (1.4+) a Lightning changes the landing characteristics and flight speed considerably. Heavily loaded Triathlons in particular are very different from lightly loaded ones. Aside from 2 jumps on a Sabre 150, I've not jumped anything but 7-cells. As far as the reserve ride goes, I'm very happy my Tempo 170 is smooth flying and relatively unresponsive. By the time I'm see it I'm usually not in the mood for any more surprises. Shocked

Bob

PS - Please say hello to Henny & Kees for me when you see them. I'm going to be in Amsterdam for 8 days in late July/early August. Perhaps we can make a few jumps?


nacmacfeegle  (D 11004)

Mar 6, 2003, 12:20 AM
Post #75 of 131 (826 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

"That's why I'd be in favor of something like this as a USPA produced guideline in the US"

This is what I said way up the thread, it might work as guidance to be used by S&TAs, instructors, CCIs etc. Regulation is likely to be unpopular.

It also struck me last night, that this could form the basis of a screening tool that could be deployed by responsible gear retailers and dealers. I've yet to dream up a scheme to protect newbies from irresponsible dealers.
This way the retailer can rest easy that they have taken reasonable steps to assess a jumpers suitability by applying a recognised 'standard' or guidance.


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 6, 2003, 2:55 AM
Post #76 of 131 (1205 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nacmacfeegle] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

What I don´t understand is that some people want to place/are placing responsibility with the retailers/dealers.

I can order most anything I want online. Some things seem te require proof of some kind, but I presume that could be easily faked. Or you can get another, qualified, jumper to get it for you.
Not to mention what I could get my hands on 2nd hand.

Now that retailer or jumper can offer advice, which I may or may not follow (depending on the person).

In the end, I strongly believe every jumper is responsible for him/her self.

With the exception of really new jumpers who don´t yet know better.

I think everybody can/should ask around for opinions (manufacturer, instructors, riggers, friends, the seller), and what your own instructor says should strongly count. Like I said, I believe everybody is responsible for him/her self and you cannot lay that responsibility at someone else´s feet (except your instructors´). I wouldn´t expect a retailer to refuse to sell me a non-appropriate canopy. But that retailer might expect it of *me* to not ask for one.


nacmacfeegle  (D 11004)

Mar 6, 2003, 3:54 AM
Post #77 of 131 (1198 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

"In the end, I strongly believe every jumper is responsible for him/her self."

I absolutely agree with you Saskia, self regulation by the jumpers is the ideal situation, however it doesn't seem to be working.

"I wouldn´t expect a retailer to refuse to sell me a non-appropriate canopy."
I think you'd be surprised.

In these litigious times, it would be nice for the likes of Square1 to have some form of accepted guidance in these matters. I'm guessing Lisa (Skybytch) gets all sorts of strange requests, and has to exercise an element of judgement in who she sells certain canopies to. I suspect that this is one of the reasons the normally reserved Kate Cooper is taking a keen interest in this subject. She is part owner of Square1, and as such may be sued in the US if they sell an unsuitable canopy to a novice.....I'm sure we have all heard tales of bizarre court cases from the US...example the lady sueing Macdonalds because her coffee burnt her as she spilled it whilst driving etc...
Even frivolous court cases can cost the defendent a lot of money.
I genuinely hope it never comes to that, and I guess SQ1 carries insurance for this. But if their premiums can be reduced by following accepted guidance in canopy selection, then I would like to think their premiums and hence their prices might drop slightly as well.

I'm pretty sure Lisa can provide examples of jumpers asking her for canopies that they have no business buying.

"I think everybody can/should ask around for opinions " ask ten jumpers their opinions, and you will get ten different answers. See any "which is the best..." thread here.

Hey, I see you hang with Henny, say hi to him and Selma from Scottish Dave, if you see them.


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 6, 2003, 4:02 AM
Post #78 of 131 (1196 views)
Shortcut
Re: [katecooper] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Ok,

I'm gonna claim this one... (sorry)
Just wanted to note that I printed the list here and translated it..... Tongue

But you should thank the EC/TC comitee of the KNVvL in the Netherlands... their subcomitee made up the "dutch-bullseye" and according list... Smile


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 6, 2003, 4:16 AM
Post #79 of 131 (1195 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sandi] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I guess I'm just tired of being part of the small minority that doesn't seem to matter to the people who make regulations like this.

This may be a good guideline for 80% of skydivers. But you still need to think about the 10% that are very light and also the 10% that are very heavy. A heavy jumper may have to stay on a 210 until they get to 500 jumps.

Why not take those people into consideration by adding a weight category. Lower the minimum canopy size slightly for people who are under a specified weight. Lower the max wingloading slightly for people over a specified weight.
.

Heh heh we have one jumper, still a student (I think), who zoomed past one of our instructors with a pocket rocket Shocked. This student jumped a Skymaster 230. Now he´s only allowed the Skymaster 280´s. He´s a kickboxer I think, so it´s all muscle. But it´s a whole lot of muscle Wink


rainman  (D 664261)

Mar 6, 2003, 6:56 AM
Post #80 of 131 (1161 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm glad to see people whose opinions I've come to respect (skybytch, billvon and others) like the new Dutch system apart from some children's diseases!

By the way: At 100 jumps, with a merit 190 at 1:1.05 I'm a cat III jumper with a cat II canopy at a cat I wingload.


Push  (A 10205)

Mar 6, 2003, 8:06 AM
Post #81 of 131 (1136 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I see your point. That's why I'd be in favor of something like this as a USPA produced guideline in the US - but not as a part of the BSR's. Even though I've been baggin' on sandi in this thread (don't hate me sandi! Not yet anyway! ), there will always be exceptions to the rules - people who don't fit the "norm." imho there needs to be room in the "rules" to accomodate them.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I think it would work best as guidelines to instructors of canopy flight. If we make such instruction mandatory, ie, you need to be certified by an approved canopy instructor before downsizing to anything, we can see the fatality reports cut in half.


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 6, 2003, 8:28 AM
Post #82 of 131 (1119 views)
Shortcut
Re: [relyon] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
CRW with just over 100 jumps? Very good. Welcome to the "dark" side!

Well that's what you get for hanging out with Team Teuge a lot, and with the Tops Clan at the same DZ Wink

Still trying to get my B on CREW but I'm having some probs because of my light WL. I need 3 other people to fly a boat (well, WL 1), esp. for me. So far, no luck. Hence my prob with not being allowed to jump that Lightning 126.
So far I'm a "pro" at following CREW people out, which is also good practice as I want to start filming CREW in the near future. But I need to work on really CREW-ing more before that.
I'm also "world famous" for my CREW exits: French world champion at the European Championships in Ampuria last year: So, whatcha doing? Ehm, mainly freefly. Yeah I know you're good at *that*!. Mad Crazy Tongue

Gotta fix that before thinking about camera's...


riddler  (D 10234)

Mar 6, 2003, 11:02 AM
Post #83 of 131 (1082 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

I've seen a lot of good posts on this thread and I have to believe that making recommendations like this is a great idea. Making it the law would be a bad idea.

There are too many variables that go into canopy and landing skills. AggieDave mentioned coaching - that is probably the strongest factor, IMO. One person mentioned that lighter people have a naturally low wing-loading to begin with.

I would also add that CanuckInUSA and I jump from 17-18,000 feet ASL and land at 5000 ASL.
Higher = less air = go faster = land faster = different canopy recommendations.

Also, I think many people have suggested that the same size canopies from different manufacturers behave very different.

Guidelines and recommendations are great - they help us understand where we are in relation to the average and can maybe hint that we are too far out of bounds, or if we have room to play with smaller canopies. But the best information comes from our own instructors and mentors - you have to actually WATCH people fly and land before you can make a statement about what they should be doing. Our fellow skydivers and instructors that we jump with every weekend (or day) are in the best position to mention to each other that your canopy may be too small or too aggressive. They are also a great resource to ask if you are considering purchasing a new canopy - they've SEEN you land. I don't think this sort of self-policing is all that hard to do. We are, after all, a community, are we not?


nacmacfeegle  (D 11004)

Mar 6, 2003, 12:39 PM
Post #84 of 131 (1057 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riddler] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

"I would also add that CanuckInUSA and I jump from 17-18,000 feet ASL and land at 5000 ASL.
Higher = less air = go faster = land faster = different canopy recommendations. "

I can't imagine the Dutch bothers and sisters would have spent too much time pondering density altitude effects.....Cool

But you make a good and valid point that hasn't been raised yet.
I'm seeing this less and less of a panacea, another set of 'rules' would hav eto be dreamt up to adjust for local altitude. Although still agree with you Riddler, in that it makes reasonable guidance, as opposed to regulation.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Mar 6, 2003, 6:44 PM
Post #85 of 131 (1019 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

An area of these regulations that hasn't been discussed here yet is the currency requirements included in Cats III - V.

Personally I think they're a bit lenient for the higher categories. Cat IV specifies a minimum of 50 jumps in the last year - that's only 4 jumps a month, yet the wingloading max is 1.5.

Cat V is unlimited in wingloading yet the currency requirement is only 100 jumps in the last 12 months - about 8 jumps a month. To me, two jumps per weekend doesn't seem like current enough to be able to safely handle a crossbraced canopy at 2.0.


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 6, 2003, 10:45 PM
Post #86 of 131 (996 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
An area of these regulations that hasn't been discussed here yet is the currency requirements included in Cats III - V.

Personally I think they're a bit lenient for the higher categories. Cat IV specifies a minimum of 50 jumps in the last year - that's only 4 jumps a month, yet the wingloading max is 1.5.

Cat V is unlimited in wingloading yet the currency requirement is only 100 jumps in the last 12 months - about 8 jumps a month. To me, two jumps per weekend doesn't seem like current enough to be able to safely handle a crossbraced canopy at 2.0.

i think the same. However, with the fine (ahem) weather we have here sometimes (ahem), 100/jumps a year is doable. If you can´t hang out at the DZ every weekend, much higher numbers may be difficult.

I spend just about every weekend there, but I tend to stay on the ground fairly easily in winds/turbulence. I can do about 200 jumps/year that way, also finance-wise.

But those jumps are mainly in summer, even tho I´ve snuck in a few to keep current (and just plain have fun of course).

A lot of jumpers here hibernate, meaning the first few weekend of the year with really good weather have been.. interesting.. Crazy
I suppose most of the jumpers here are current only in summer.


(This post was edited by dragon2 on Mar 7, 2003, 12:52 AM)


ernokaikkonen  (D 12)

Mar 7, 2003, 12:50 AM
Post #87 of 131 (984 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I suppose most of the jumpers here are current only in summer.

Exactly... A six-month skydiving season changes things a bit. Not everyone can live in California.Frown


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Mar 7, 2003, 8:04 AM
Post #88 of 131 (946 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ernokaikkonen] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
A six-month skydiving season changes things a bit. Not everyone can live in California.
Ahhh yes. I didn't consider that.

The six-month season does change things, but even at that I think the Cat V currency requirement could be a bit higher.


CanuckInUSA  (D 26396)

Mar 7, 2003, 8:06 AM
Post #89 of 131 (944 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

One would think that taking six months off and then immediately jumping a category five type of canopy come spring time would be like playing with fire. But then what do I know, I've never flown a category five type of canopy.


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Mar 7, 2003, 8:33 AM
Post #90 of 131 (937 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CanuckInUSA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

I've taken 4 months off and hopped right back on my Cat 4 canopy after only a handful of jumps on it the fall before. Yes, the pucker factor can be there. But I felt safer jumping a canopy I knew some about rather then grabbing something else that I was unsure about.

Shortened jumping seasons really changes things a lot. I'm only really current 8-9 months for the year. But in 8 months I average 200+ jumps. 100 jumps in 6 months is 16 per month, better then most the jumpers that replied to the poll on the front page of here seem to do. People who do hundreds of jumps seem to usually be TM's and I'm still unconvinced that flying a tandem for 100 times will turn you into a swoop god...


Liemberg  (Student)

Mar 8, 2003, 2:03 AM
Post #91 of 131 (905 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riddler] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I've seen a lot of good posts on this thread and I have to believe that making recommendations like this is a great idea. Making it the law would be a bad idea.

That's why I propagated on the dutch skydiving forum to make it a RECOMMENDATION instead of putting it in the BSR's as they did. As a DZO I see a whole can of worms opening up with this. I like vague rules and had no problem whatsoever telling people they couldn't jump a certain canopy since I felt it was to small for their abilities. I don't think I ever allowed anything at my place that was outside of the guidelines as they are written down now, but I never bothered to write them down - much less would I incorporate them in the RULES.
The problem with those written RULES are that they - though not the law as such, have a funny way of surfacing in a court of law, when a mourning relative or an unhappy insurance company decides to take a shot at the most obvious party - the DZ where it happened...
Also (from dutch jurisprudence) the KNVvL (dutch USPA) can be held responsible for the upholding of all their rules at all their affiliated DZ's.
(The dutch gymnastics federation found that out and paid dearly for that knowledge...)
When you make a rule you just cannot say 'O, well - this is experimental and if it comes in handy we might break it at our own discretion'. With a recommendation you can, with a rule you can't.
Anybody would agree that it should be possible for Saskia to jump that Lightning 126 and participate in CRW that has any chance of success. Now she can't for it would break the rule. (notice they already refused it, IIRC...)
Also, now that it has become a rule, it can be turned around quickly, where you would feel you have a certain 'right' to jump a certain canopy. I might disagree but that was a lot easier for me when it wasn't written down in the way it is now. (I know I still can refuse anything, but...)

One final note in 'the blame game'
Of course the responsibility for letting people jump at your place with canopies that are to much to handle for their experience lies with the DZ and not with the people that sold them the canopy. You check the logbooks, you have phone, fax & email to consult your colleagues should you not trust the logbook and certain customers - the ones that make headlines in the news and dents in the DZ - you just don't want.
When you sell canopies, that is a whole different game and other than informing and warning you bear no responsibility. Got a million bucks? You can buy a ferrari and the sales rep doesn't have to check your driving abilities. The fact that most if not all skydiving gear dealers do ask about it is wonderful but not legally necessary.


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 8, 2003, 2:09 AM
Post #92 of 131 (905 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Liemberg] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Anybody would agree that it should be possible for Saskia to jump that Lightning 126 and participate in CRW that has any chance of success.

Uhm, I might disagree with you with that... (along with others of the instruction group of Teuge)

On another note... I've been talking to a law student about this, and she said the following. For the court of law it doesn't matter if it's regulations or not. The court only sees the BVR (BSR) as an advice (and not a law), therefor making it a guideline has technical the same status as making it regulation. (in the eye's of the court).

Also, you may have been responisble in this matter, we have to look at the whole on the Netherlands. And general speaking (it's not only a Dutch problem I think) people are being flown by their canopies, instead of the other way around. I'm surprised by this discussion in total, cause almost no1 goes into that. People are not only dying of lowturns, also landingfatalities as a whole, landinginjuries, reserve which lead to fatalities and reserve's in general, all of them have a high percentage which can be atributed to fast/responisve canopies. Which doesn't make the canopies bad, but it has to be flown/packed by someone who knows what he is doing or at least has the experience the handle the shit he or she is facing.

Also, cummon you and I both know that making it a guideline in The Netherlands mean shit. Everyone is an exception, especially on the big DZ's (Texel and Teuge) which are also a haven for people that are being "kicked off" their "home DZ".


(This post was edited by USPA on Mar 8, 2003, 2:19 AM)


Liemberg  (Student)

Mar 8, 2003, 2:32 AM
Post #93 of 131 (905 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Well Paul, if you have figuered out how to successfully do CRW with one participant 'floating like hell' and that participant being the newbie, I sure would like to know how to do that...
Smile

(When I did my first one, ages ago, I was told to keep my heading and I would be docked - but that didn't happen for several 1000 feet since I floated to much. That was a jump with one of the maffia brothers, ruling dutch champion at the time...)

Other than that I think you must agree that we now have 'an experimental rule' - that is bad IMHO and I explained why I think so.

edit: He Paul, don't use edit for reply Smile - I might be tempted to do the same... Smile
Quote:
Also, cummon you and I both know that making it a guideline in The Netherlands mean shit. Everyone is an exception, especially on the big DZ's (Texel and Teuge) which are also a haven for people that are being "kicked off" their "home DZ".

Then I would urge 'the big boys' (Texel and Teuge) most strongly to make rules and regulations for their own place and not bother the rest of the country with "solutions" to their problems... Mad
What is going to stop them? I have rules at my place that you better not break jumping at Ameland and they are nowhere to be found in the BSR's.
The 'downsizing to fast outside of the guidance of instructors' problem is non-existing at smaller DZ's.
I never had a problem with it and would I have one in the future I would gladly say goodbye to that particular customer.

FYI Let you law-student friend look up the verdict on 'the parents of a drowned student' vs 'The DZ in the far south west of the Netherlands'. The BSR's were quoted in that one - especially the fact that in the eyes of the court they were breached.


(This post was edited by Liemberg on Mar 8, 2003, 5:42 AM)


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 8, 2003, 7:28 AM
Post #94 of 131 (881 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Liemberg] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

What someone wants to do, never dictates how I aproach safety in my book!

Ok, your reply about dz rules is exactly our problem. First, I know of people who downsize to fast on small DZ's. (It may even be harder to stop them on an small DZ/club, because no1 is really in charge (PCA as an exexption off course))
Secondly... gues where are those people who are sent away at smaller DZ's are going too? Unsure And a new DZ hasn't got a clue about that persons past and skills...

To be tottally honest, I think the rules (with exceptions of the "outcasts" described above) are most usefull on the smaller DZ, because now an instructor can hide behind the rules, without being afraid of "impopularity". But then again, I'm biased off course, and because I have to do my I-exams this year I'd best shut up now.... SlyTongue

PS
I didn't reply through ad edit, I just pushed the wrong button and continued writing the original...


Liemberg  (Student)

Mar 8, 2003, 8:45 AM
Post #95 of 131 (878 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
To be tottally honest, I think the rules (with exceptions of the "outcasts" described above) are most usefull on the smaller DZ, because now an instructor can hide behind the rules, without being afraid of "impopularity".

Anyone who lets 'popularity' dictate the decisions he takes as an S&TA /instructor and therefore needs rules 'to hide behind' is in the wrong place. Once you accept that job, you inevitably gonna step on peoples toes. Writing rules for every conceivable situation is not going to help, though guidelines may come in handy - and you can hide behind those just as easily, should you feel the need to.

I know it is easy for me ('Which part of NO you didn't understand? Which part of BOSS you didn't understand?') but it should be just as easy for others, you just put your foot down. Putting my foot down was a trick I mastered as a club instructor a long time ago, but maybe that skill got lost the last few years.
If the big DZ you jump at has a problem controlling and overseeing somebody that I just sent away, should I adapt new rules? Come on, you gotta be kidding.

From what I have seen here, I found the 'swedish chart' a lot easier and more straightforward as a guideline than the 'dutch bullseye'. And my own (semi) elliptical Sonic 135 (loaded at 1.7) isn't even on the dutch list. Can I jump it next month? (My last few jumps were on 170, since I lent the 135 to someone who wrecked his own canopy...) I have over a 1000 jumps (+/- 2500), I am current on the 170 non-elliptical, I made less than 100 jumps last year. Then again, my landing area is 1200 x 500 meter... Should I come to Teuge so you can give me a canopy control course and sign me off, before I jump my Sonic 135 again? Wink

If the problem is that locally there is no1 in charge, than that problem should be addressed. It is not addressed properly writing rules for everybody everywhere and in this case those rules will be breached massively (If only because people don't understand them and find them way too complicated...)


relyon  (D 18973)

Mar 8, 2003, 9:20 AM
Post #96 of 131 (870 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Liemberg] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Well Paul, if you have figuered out how to successfully do CRW with one participant 'floating like hell' and that participant being the newbie, I sure would like to know how to do that...

Any competent CRW coach should be able to analyze the problem in a couple jumps and recommend hardware and/or wetware changes to correct it. Links and sashays come to mind.

Bob


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 8, 2003, 9:25 AM
Post #97 of 131 (868 views)
Shortcut
Re: [relyon] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Any competent CRW coach should be able to analyze the problem in a couple jumps and recommend hardware and/or wetware changes to correct it. Links and sashays come to mind.

??

What is 'wetware'? And sashays I get, but what do you mean by links?


relyon  (D 18973)

Mar 8, 2003, 9:47 AM
Post #98 of 131 (864 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What is 'wetware'? And sashays I get, but what do you mean by links?

Oops - introduced a random term - my bad. Pirate Wetware refers the jumpers brain. Sly

Adding a Rapide link to the front or rear risers is a common way of changing the trim slightly to compensate for minor float differences. Adding a link to the front decreases the trim (increasing float and decreasing drive slightly); adding a link to the rear increases the trim (decreasing float and increasing drive slighty). Adding links is not a long term fix but it can make things a bit easier on any given day, other things being equal.

New Lightnings generally float a little until the knots are set. Adding links to the rear risers is a common way of adjusting until they've got 20-30 jumps. I keep a pair of #5s and #6s with me for just this purpose.

Bob (edited for grammar and to add "slightly")


(This post was edited by relyon on Mar 8, 2003, 9:51 AM)


Liemberg  (Student)

Mar 8, 2003, 10:01 AM
Post #99 of 131 (860 views)
Shortcut
Re: [relyon] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Please don't get distracted by the example. I picked it for rhetoric reasons. Could have picked just as easily someone who is a very accomplished canopy pilot and who can get an excellent deal on second hand gear. Just one step to far for the new dutch rules (downsizing in on step more than the 'bullseye' allows, a few jumps missing for a 'legal' downsize, canopy big enough but placed in another category, etcetera.) I can live with the guidelines but the morons decided to make it a RULE.
My objection is against that, not against the 'bullseye' as a guideline which I can ignore if I see fit and apply ('hide behind') when my 'DZO-gut-feeling' points in another direction.


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 8, 2003, 2:41 PM
Post #100 of 131 (849 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Liemberg] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Sigh... I see a "Liemberg" discussion comming... Sly

Remember the old english wishdom? What is, isn't always what ought to be. It works the other way around too. (that goes for alot of suggestions/insights discussed here, if people were responsible, we wouldn't have the problem in the first place)

You're missing the point. You shouldn't "ban" someone from your DZ, cause that's only transferring the problem to a DZ that isn't familiar with this "problem" (in the case the person=the problem) (In your words from an old rec.skydiving discussion: It doesn't have the "crater looking for an impact side" sticker on it).

I personally find the Dutch system more flexible and gives a more guided downsizing then the swedish system, but then thats only my opinion (and to quote you again "It's mine alone, unless you share it, then it's yours also" )

those rules will be breached massively

Now you lost me? First you say everyone at your DZ already has a canopy which fits this system, secondly you spend 2 alinea's telling me you have no problem staying in control?


Liemberg  (Student)

Mar 9, 2003, 2:52 AM
Post #101 of 131 (1242 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Sigh... I see a "Liemberg" discussion comming... Sly

You can back out any time... Cool
And the 'rules of engagement' are quite simple, I believe. Attack my idea's, refute my beliefs, convince the audience. Moderators have the last word. (OK morons was a bit harsh - but directed at a group rather than an individual. You, of course, though very vocal in expressing their beliefs, are not part of that group.)

Quote:
Remember the old english wishdom? What is, isn't always what ought to be.

But who's to say what is? Who died and left you in charge? (yes I know, another old usenet trick... Smile)

Quote:
You shouldn't "ban" someone from your DZ, cause that's only transferring the problem to a DZ that isn't familiar with this "problem"

Though I can, I usually don't ban people from my place, I convince them. If others prefer banning then it should be up to me what I do with it when those exiles turn up at my place. If I start banning people from my place it should be up to others what to do with that.

Right now, all the rule change has managed to do is turn a too small canopy into a forbidden fruit.
We all know that tastes a lot better than what is allowed...Cool
Are you sure that a 'miscalculated high performance landing' under a Sabre loaded 0,9 is always survivable? I highly doubt that.

Quote:
It doesn't have the "crater looking for an impact side" sticker on it

Though the sticker indeed is "mine", 'the crater looking for a grid reference' can be atributed to Winsor Naugler, I believe... Smile

My working hypothesis is they all wear stickers - I take it from there... Smile

Quote:
those rules will be breached massively

Now you lost me? First you say everyone at your DZ already has a canopy which fits this system, secondly you spend 2 alinea's telling me you have no problem staying in control?

Well right now ANY canopy that they were using prior to the rule change fits the system - so if problems were existing before the 1th of march, what has changed? Secondly I was in control prior to that date and I didn't say those breaches were going to take place at my DZ. But you've got to be living in a parallel universe to think a complicated system like the one at hand has any chance to survive in the long run in the real world if it is a rule and not a guideline. If a rule change were neccessary how about: "Downsizing? Everybody must do x jumps opening high familiarizing with the canopy. Below C - license you need instructors written permission for the specific canopy." Plain, simple, controllable - and don't forget someone is signing off.

"Which moron did allow YOU to jump with this handkerchief?!?" Mad
"Uhm, his name and license number are in the logbook sir..." Smile


sducoach  (D License)

Mar 9, 2003, 7:21 AM
Post #102 of 131 (1233 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

SmileLet's think about the real problem here guys. If you will please contact USPA HQ and ask Jim Crouch for the stats from 2001 and 2002 concerning fatalities. You will be surprised (or not) that 91-88% of the fatalities the past two years are in some way related to canopy problems, either "mental" or mechanical.
It's not the equipment that we allow skydivers to fly it's the education ,or lack of, that we provide. The attitude of the young jumper (remember that bulletproof time you had) that wants it now and not willing to take the time to learn along with having instructors/coaches/mentors that simply do not know what they are saying about canopies, wing loading, performance, perceptions, or skills.

When I purchased my first Stiletto in 94 I had to sign a waiver and send in copies of my log book before I could purchase the canopy. I don't think we need to go back to that however, we DO need to EDUCATE! If not some one will REGULATE!
Blues,
J.E.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 9, 2003, 7:29 AM
Post #103 of 131 (1232 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sducoach] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Educate, not regulate.


riddler  (D 10234)

Mar 9, 2003, 11:28 AM
Post #104 of 131 (1218 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

err - OK - I searched through this thread quickly, so I hope I'm not repeating what might be an obvious question.

If you look at the bulls-eye chart, the required canopy size for class 1 and 2 are both 170. It kinda looks like the canopy size for class 1 should be a 190, rather than 170. Anybody else agree? I'm guessing this is just a misprint.


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 9, 2003, 12:01 PM
Post #105 of 131 (1212 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riddler] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

No this isn't a misprint.

The idea is that you want to prevent certain canopies to be used for the first jumps, which can be used after people have made the first 10 jumps.

But sadly to say, DZ politics have played a major role here.....


Liemberg  (Student)

Mar 9, 2003, 1:36 PM
Post #106 of 131 (1196 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Educate, not regulate.

To be completely fair it must be noted that the new dutch system tries to do both, since it prescribes 'transition jumps' where the downsizer is mandated (below C) / advised (C and above) to make canopy familiarization jumps with a prescribed/advised program, that consist of all sorts of things you would want to do with a new canopy. Jumps should be solely directed at the canopy, i.e. solojumps from 6000ft or above, making a H&P and finishing the program above 2000 ft.
Since I have been doing that (though not as extensive as they put into the rules now) with every new toy I purchased since the Para Commander I jumped in 1982, I have no problem with 'advising with great emphasis' something like that to the youngsters.

The proof of the pudding however is in the eating and for the canopy that would always be the landing of the dang thang... Unsure

At my place I happen to have a huge field for the students but the big boys of course are allowed to look cool and land near the hangar. I have one rule however which is: New canopy? Land out at the students field - just like I do myself. Make stand up landings near the target, then return to the big boys landing area.

Come to think of it, before now I never did write that down somewhere, yet cannot remember any 'violations' of this 'rule'... Cool


sducoach  (D License)

Mar 9, 2003, 4:54 PM
Post #107 of 131 (1182 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Smile Riggerrob.

Exactly. I'm glad someone got it. I hope others do to. Blues to you my brother.

J.E.Smile


Kinaa

Mar 9, 2003, 5:40 PM
Post #108 of 131 (1173 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Categorie III (wingload max 1.3, > 100 jumps)
NAA: Parafoil
Is that some kind of mistake?
Anyone know why is Parafoil in that group?

Thanks.


relyon  (D 18973)

Mar 9, 2003, 10:10 PM
Post #109 of 131 (1160 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Liemberg] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Please don't get distracted by the example. I picked it for rhetoric reasons.

I have no idea what you're referring to. Your post mentioned the difficulty of catching a floating CRW newbie. I replied with valid suggestions of how to correct the stated problem.

It's your rhetoric that's distracting.

Bob


Liemberg  (Student)

Mar 10, 2003, 10:56 AM
Post #110 of 131 (1125 views)
Shortcut
Re: [relyon] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It's your rhetoric that's distracting.

I apologize if my rhetoric is distracting instead of helping to get my point across. Of course I wouldn't tell anyone who is in charge at a particular DZ what to allow and what not. I just wished they would do me the same courtesy. In the last few years I have seen a development in dutch skydiving where no one is ever rendering account for what happens, yet I get more and more detailed rules and regulations. Most of those stem directly from the bigger DZ's that have a survey problem (to many people jumping at the same time while the person in charge has a problem estimating their individual abilities). Survey problems are tackled best with a general rule so I can understand what they want to do and why they want to do it. But I dont have the same survey problem - therefore I don't need those rules.
For the sake of simplicity and a whole bunch of legal reasons I don't want rules that I can do without.


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 10, 2003, 11:38 AM
Post #111 of 131 (1115 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Liemberg] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

FYI Let you law-student friend look up the verdict on 'the parents of a drowned student' vs 'The DZ in the far south west of the Netherlands'. The BSR's were quoted in that one - especially the fact that in the eyes of the court they were breached.


I forgot to go into this, but I noticed you keep getting back on legal complications. I have the verdict in front of me and just read it again. (did it before, but wanted to be sure). I read the verdict as the BVR being a advice, it then uses the BVR as a guideline. Even more specific to this case: It also says the student couldn't be held acountable for breaking the rules because she was still in training. These new rules wont be broken by any1 on student status. The ruling therefore implies that when one is capable to know the rules (you have to learn rules for you A license!). The jumper him or herself in accountable.

BTW
I just looked at your profile... ROFLMAO.... Laugh licensing organisation : RLD.... Man you don't like the KNVvL at all do you! Tongue

On a more serieus note... I saw you jumped a PISA canopy , because I wouldn't want to lose such a colourfull person in the Netherlands (critism keeps every1 on their toes Tongue ), did you check the slider stops?


Liemberg  (Student)

Mar 10, 2003, 3:46 PM
Post #112 of 131 (1091 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I saw you jumped a PISA canopy , because I wouldn't want to lose such a colourfull person in the Netherlands (critism keeps every1 on their toes ), did you check the slider stops?

Been checking sliderstops since before you knew parachutes existed kiddo... Cool

And - at the risk of boring all our international friends to death - on the verdict: The student couldn't be held accountable for her so-called 'breach of safety regulations' (as had been argued by the parachute centers lawyer) but I was refering to the boat that was supposed to be there (and had to be there according to the regulations had the waterjump been planned) - that's where the court saw a serious breach of the safety regulations on the part of the parachute centre. And that's what got them convicted IIRC.

Now of course one could argue that the waterjump hadn't been planned and therefore a boat nor a life jacket were mandatory ... but AFAIK they were smart enough not to take it to a higher court.


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 11, 2003, 1:15 AM
Post #113 of 131 (1061 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Liemberg] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

True, but you now agree with me, that is was based on "what should be reasonable" instead of the exact text of the BVR! (which again is logical, cause the BVR isn't a law)


Liemberg  (Student)

Mar 11, 2003, 3:10 AM
Post #114 of 131 (1052 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
True, but you now agree with me, that is was based on "what should be reasonable" instead of the exact text of the BVR! (which again is logical, cause the BVR isn't a law)

But my main point was that it was discussed in a court and - apparently - taken so seriously there that it found its way into the verdict. Note that on the one hand the lawyer tries to put the whole blame on the drowned victim, saying 'BVR violation - student not executing proper prescribed procedures for water landing' while the prosecutor says 'BVR violation, when landing in water DZ must have boat at hand for every jumper and the jumper must wear lifejacket'
Both parties missing the point about what was actually written in the dutch BSR's at that time, yet the BVR was read by the court and played a role in the verdict. I don't see that happening when we are talking about guidelines.

So, in an ever more litigious world (though in Holland not as severe as in the USA) when people 'try to hang me in a court of law' I don't want to supply the rope myself, nor do I want "my governing organization" (KNVvL) to supply it.

(Though I must say they actually re-wrote the part about waterlanding right after the accident and before the lawsuit... talk about feeble attempts... Crazy)


Seagull  (D 3508)

Mar 11, 2003, 5:27 AM
Post #115 of 131 (1041 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Sounds interesting, but I have a Query, Were would that put me.
I have progessed Quickly on certain canopies, and basically have been jumping a loading of 1:6 at the moment ( although still in a learning stage) and have only 360 jumps which would put me and my canopy into the IV or V situation although by the # of jumps I may not be allowed too.
Although my CI and DZSO, have basically said yes he is capable of using that conopy, at that loading
Just athought.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 11, 2003, 9:12 AM
Post #116 of 131 (1024 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Seagull] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

>Sounds interesting, but I have a Query, Were would that put me.

Any system that mandates minimum #'s of jumps for a given canopy loading will be 'unfair' to someone. On the plus side, jumping a larger canopy will not put you in a dangerous situation.

In any case, I would be more concerned with a jumper's ability to fly the thing under all conditions than the actual loading. If you can do all the survival stuff (90 deg flat turns at 50 feet, 45 degree turns in the flare, rear riser landings etc etc) then that's the important part. Being able to do that prevents people from getting a canopy that's over their heads, and that's the purpose of the original rules.


tibby  (A License)

Mar 11, 2003, 11:03 AM
Post #117 of 131 (1011 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Seagull: For what I understand, the new dutch rule applies to people who want to change canopy type/size now. You can keep on jumping whatever you are jumping now.


Seagull  (D 3508)

Mar 11, 2003, 8:34 PM
Post #118 of 131 (990 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Will keep jumping it, and yes have done all those thing's flat turns, rear riser landing's, turn landing's, quick stop landing's ( starting a swoop, then having to deck it quickly), and a couple of other's. Wink


Liemberg  (Student)

Mar 12, 2003, 1:12 AM
Post #119 of 131 (978 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tibby] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
You can keep on jumping whatever you are jumping now

Since he is not living in Holland, but in Australia, he can change canopies also without much concern about dutch canopy regulations...

D**n! Again nobody seems to accept our moral & juristic leadership...SmileSmileSmile


Seagull  (D 3508)

Mar 12, 2003, 2:25 AM
Post #120 of 131 (968 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

You got it I'am in Oz, But was just making a piont, ability and skill make it hard to enforce reg's, when there are people who will advance quicker than other's, but are restricted
As in all endevor's there should be a way for a CI or instructor's to make a call about a person, and have that written in so that person is not restricted by paper call's (reg's etc)
And that person does not lose interest, or is ostriced for there ability.


sducoach  (D License)

Mar 14, 2003, 8:21 PM
Post #121 of 131 (932 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Crazy"On the plus side, jumping a larger canopy will not put you in a dangerous situation."Crazy

Never say Never. You can put yourself in a dangerous situation under ANY canopy.

J.E.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 16, 2003, 11:34 PM
Post #122 of 131 (895 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sducoach] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

>Never say Never. You can put yourself in a dangerous situation under
> ANY canopy.

Well, yeah. But going to a larger canopy will not put you in any _more_ dangerous situations than sticking with the smaller canopy.


sducoach  (D License)

Mar 17, 2003, 5:06 AM
Post #123 of 131 (883 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Smileagreed! Slams are Slams no matter what canopy you're under.
Stupid
Low
Altitude
Maneuvers

Blues,
J.E.


Waldschrat

Oct 19, 2005, 5:20 AM
Post #124 of 131 (618 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Categorie V (wingload = unlimited, > 1000 jumps)

• Performance Designs: Velocity
• Parachutes de France: Ninja
• Precision: Xaos 21, Xaos 27
• Icarus: Extreme FX, VX
• Paratec: X-wing, Fandango

Rofl, the Fandango is in Categorie V......Shocked??!
A girl on my dropzone with 170 jumps fly this wing.
She had a wingload from 1.23.....Why is this chute so high estimatet??
Her teacher, an older jumper, recommend the chute.Unsure


(This post was edited by Waldschrat on Oct 19, 2005, 5:37 AM)


dragon2  (D 101989)

Oct 19, 2005, 6:10 AM
Post #125 of 131 (594 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Waldschrat] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

It's been moved to IV, there've been some changes to the original canopy list:
http://www.parachute.nl/...upload/pdf/bvrbb.pdf


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Oct 19, 2005, 7:41 AM
Post #126 of 131 (480 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Its quite odd to see Parafoil in CatIII. I have started with old accuracy canopies.....like that.


Waldschrat

Oct 19, 2005, 7:45 AM
Post #127 of 131 (478 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It's been moved to IV, there've been some changes to the original canopy list:
http://www.parachute.nl/...upload/pdf/bvrbb.pdf

Puuh, this looks a little better......


piisfish

Oct 19, 2005, 7:46 AM
Post #128 of 131 (478 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Saskia, just a remark,

Sabre1 is in Cat I ?? Is that correct ??Shocked


dragon2  (D 101989)

Oct 19, 2005, 8:56 AM
Post #129 of 131 (465 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes. They have to be, since we have some dutch dz's using them as student canopies.


piisfish

Oct 19, 2005, 10:13 AM
Post #130 of 131 (449 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

well... we also use Silhouette's as student canopies... They are class II on "your" list...


dragon2  (D 101989)

Oct 19, 2005, 10:45 AM
Post #131 of 131 (446 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
well... we also use Silhouette's as student canopies... They are class II on "your" list...

So? There are DZ's out there using Safires as student canopies, probably other canopies are in use somewhere, as well. But not on Dutch DZ's.



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)