Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 21, 2011, 11:27 PM
Post #101 of 153 (1620 views)
Shortcut
Re: [polarbear] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>But if skydivers cannot see each other when making turns larger than 90 degrees,
> how can any pilot under any wing ever make a turn greater than 90 degrees?

Assuming the givens in your question, the answer is easy - do them only when you are alone in the sky. Then you are guaranteed to not run into anyone in the air.

>It seems that statements like the one you made focus on the dramatic examples of
>NOT seeing each other, but does not satisfactorily explain the 10-to-the-x-power
>number of times skydivers have made turns greater than a 90 and have been able to
>see each other just fine.

I don't think we see each other just fine. I've made 5000 jumps; had maybe 100 close calls (i.e. jumps where someone came close enough to me to really get my attention.) In many of those the other jumper just plain never saw me. When I was jumping a Pursuit 215 and my friends were jumping PD190's it wasn't as big a deal, because you had a LOT more time to deal with the problem - and people were, in general, coming at you from on level. And if both of you didn't see each other? The sky is very big, and chance kept you safe most of the time.

We've changed that formula a lot in the intervening years. Canopies, on average, have gotten much smaller and much faster. This reduces our time to react. People do more high performance landings, and thus fewer people are on level on final. Canopies descend incredibly quickly in turns, which means even a regular turn will cause you to come at someone from a much steeper angle than in years past - which means the bottom person has a harder time seeing the approaching person. Loads have gotten bigger as more and more DZ's use turbines.

All of this means that the big sky theory is no longer working as well. We're seeing as well (or as poorly) as we ever did, but the margins for error are decreasing, and random chance isn't keeping us as safe as it once did.


Fast  (D 28237)

Apr 22, 2011, 7:43 AM
Post #102 of 153 (1595 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The statistics show that 68% of canopy collisions involve people making big turns (>90.) Stop the big turns in the main landing area, and limit turns to those needed to fly a standard pattern, and you've eliminated over half the problems there. Are there still problems? Will people still collide if they do no more than 90 degree turns? Yes; and we should deal with them as well. But eliminating over half the fatalities out there is a good start.

That is a logical fallacy. While it's true that ~68% of collisions were involving turns over 90, it's not true that it was the only cause. In fact, it's hard to know if those people would have not also collided if they weren't making the turns. The people in question may have lacked (clearly) the skill to perceive other traffic. Maybe the big turn made it harder, but the skill level that they had was also presumably greater because they had spent time working on canopy flight.

That's kinda that point that I was making with my last post. We need better ways of educating people and determining skill level. We need people to want to stay within their own skill set. I don't discount that there may be procedural / operational changes that can be made in some instances to help this situation, but it's not the problem.


polarbear  (D 25673)

Apr 22, 2011, 7:43 AM
Post #103 of 153 (1594 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Bill/Sparky -

More or less I agree with most of the points you brought up. Luck does play a part in this equation, heavier traffic and faster canopies do reduce the odds on safety.

I think I come to a different conclusion, though.

It seems to me that attributing this phenomenon to luck is dangerous, simply because I don't find it to be a complete solution. I don't even think it's a majority solution. Remember, if we are talking about 'x' number of hits/close calls and 'y' number of turns without an issue, it seems to me that y is a lot bigger than x, probably by a couple of orders of magnitude. That's one hell of a statistical anomaly if the dominant factor here is luck.

If we want to address this problem then we have a responsibility to understand it. By attributing this to luck, it seems that we are sidestepping that responsibility and just saying 'There is nothing I can do except implement regulation X and hope it improves the odds to an acceptable level'.

Respectfully, I think there is more to this. I think skydivers DO have the ability to plan for, see, and negotiate traffic. We've done it successfully too many times for me to think otherwise. I think there are other factors than just luck. Attributing it to luck and random chance completely ignores any other factors, and in my opinion these other factors are the dominant ones.


DocPop  (C License)

Apr 22, 2011, 8:46 AM
Post #104 of 153 (1579 views)
Shortcut
Re: A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

I realize it's only semantics, but it occurred to me that canopies do not just have collisions; pilots have collisions. The canopies just do what they are told - rightly or wrongly.

Perhaps if we started referring to these incidents as pilot collisions it might lead to a culture where people take more responsibility for them, rather than blaming bad luck, circumstances etc

Acknowledging responsibility for causing these incidents seems to me to be an important step towards a solution.

So, pilot collisions - who's with me on that?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 22, 2011, 9:27 AM
Post #105 of 153 (1567 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Fast] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>While it's true that ~68% of collisions were involving turns over 90, it's not true that it
>was the only cause.

Agreed. Many things might contribute to it - poor choice of canopy colors, poor situational awareness, bad choice of area to turn in. However, since the turn culminated in the collision, it was the most proximate cause. In all cases had the jumper not made the turn the collision would most likely not have occurred.

>The people in question may have lacked (clearly) the skill to perceive other traffic.

Or the task (clear your airspace visually) may simply not be possible.

>We need better ways of educating people and determining skill level.

Why is determining skill level the issue?


sacex250

Apr 22, 2011, 1:30 PM
Post #106 of 153 (1549 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So, pilot collisions - who's with me on that?
How about Blind Pilot Collisions?

For example:

"Did you hear there was another BPC at Perris? I guess they never saw it coming!"

-


Fast  (D 28237)

Apr 22, 2011, 1:35 PM
Post #107 of 153 (1544 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>While it's true that ~68% of collisions were involving turns over 90, it's not true that it
>was the only cause.

Agreed. Many things might contribute to it - poor choice of canopy colors, poor situational awareness, bad choice of area to turn in. However, since the turn culminated in the collision, it was the most proximate cause. In all cases had the jumper not made the turn the collision would most likely not have occurred.

>The people in question may have lacked (clearly) the skill to perceive other traffic.

Or the task (clear your airspace visually) may simply not be possible.

>We need better ways of educating people and determining skill level.

Why is determining skill level the issue?

I think it's an issue because short of banning small parachutes, there needs to be a way to figure out who can actually keep up with what's going on when flying one. I absolutely agree that risk factors increase the smaller the parachute I also agree that the greater the disparity between parachutes in the air at one time the more risk. I don't think small parachutes are going away.

If people are more able to determine where they are at skill wise and we educate properly it will cause people to want to fly a parachute that they are qualified for. I also am not suggesting that we directly regulate who jumps what, I think people need to want to be reasonable. If we can change that mentality it will takes us quite a few steps in the right direction towards lowering the risk of canopy collisions. Also, I don't make these statements in reference to any one particular incident.

It's something akin to my understanding of a process that was once used to train air force pilots. You start out with the slower stuff and they were moving people up till they couldn't keep up with what the plane was doing. Some people just don't have the skill to think about the turn they have to make for something that is still 6 miles in front of them, those people don't belong in an F16. The same can be said about canopy piloting. There are a lot of people who can get by on luck, but truly lack the skill to know what's going on and stay ahead of the parachute. They need to be flying something that they can learn on, still have fun and actually want to be flying, not resenting someone telling them screw you, you can't jump xyz parachute.


(This post was edited by Fast on Apr 22, 2011, 1:40 PM)


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Apr 22, 2011, 3:53 PM
Post #108 of 153 (1520 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Fast] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It's something akin to my understanding of a process that was once used to train air force pilots. You start out with the slower stuff and they were moving people up till they couldn't keep up with what the plane was doing. Some people just don't have the skill to think about the turn they have to make for something that is still 6 miles in front of them, those people don't belong in an F16. The same can be said about canopy piloting. There are a lot of people who can get by on luck, but truly lack the skill to know what's going on and stay ahead of the parachute. They need to be flying something that they can learn on, still have fun and actually want to be flying, not resenting someone telling them screw you, you can't jump xyz parachute.
I like this idea but how do you think we could implement this? (not a rhetorical question Smile )


kallend  (D 23151)

Apr 22, 2011, 8:07 PM
Post #109 of 153 (1494 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Let's compare that to the 400-way, ...

What's that guy in front of me about to do? Well, if he's on base, he's about to make a right turn onto final. Turn or go straight for a little longer; those are the only two things we had to worry about. We knew that he wasn't going to crank a 270, or start doing S-turns, because if he did that, he'd get cut from the dive - and he didn't want to get cut. .

Isn't it strange that fear of getting cut works, and fear of death or serious injury doesn't.


in2jumping  (C License)

Apr 22, 2011, 9:35 PM
Post #110 of 153 (1490 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sacex250] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
1) Require a fairly extensive canopy training course for the A license.

Someone who doesn't have an A license isn't the problem. A student on a lightly loaded canopy is going to be flying, or trying to fly, a slow, normal basic pattern anyway. That's what they should be trying to learn, and if they can't do that then more advanced canopy training becomes irrelevant. -

They grow up to become problems because they do not receive ANY real canopy training early on, training has not kept up with canopy evolution. Also there has been a number of CCs involving low time jumpers over the years.


In reply to:
[ 2) Implement Brian Germain's downsizing chart as a BSR.

While Brian Germain's chart is useful as a reference, it has some serious shortcomings that make it unrealistic to use as an enforced rule.

The chart only combines three factors: exit weight, canopy size, and number of jumps. It doesn't take into account the design and performance differences between canopy models, it doesn't differentiate between how the canopy is intended to be used, and it doesn't account for a skydiver's skills, training, and attitude.

Compare this to paragliders, where wings are uniformly rated according to skill level and safety. -

Re-read Brian Germains chart it does take into account some design factors and I think is a great basic chart to form a BSR around. Some sort of BSR needs to be implemented to regulate canopy progression to cut down on the number of canopy related injuries and deaths.


In reply to:
[ 3) Implement a NO passing rule, lower canopy has the right of way and you must not over take them.

This isn't realistic. In every other facet of aviation, there are right-of-way rules for converging, overtaking, and sequencing to a landing area. How do you outlaw overtaking or "over-descending"? It doesn't matter if one canopy is faster than another if they're both flying a logical pattern and the faster canopy is practicing "see-and-avoid" which a no-passing rule would require anyway. It's the lack of "see-and-avoid" and therefore yielding to another canopy that's the problem. Not to mention, a traffic jam behind a slow canopy doesn't work in the air anymore than it works behind a slow car on the road.

Think if you segregate and split up the main landing area this could be doable. Would not be perfect but better than our current solution of doing nothing Crazy.

In reply to:
4) Segregate canopy landing areas by wing loading. Split landing areas into two, fast canopies land over here slower canopies land over here.

Again, one canopy overtaking another canopy isn't the problem; it's people not seeing each other and failing to properly yield to each other. "Circle of Awareness" is such a big deal during freefall training, but it needs to be an even bigger deal under canopy. Having a "head-on-a-swivel" looking for traffic and not just focusing on the landing area is what's going to make "see-and-avoid" work. I've seen very view videos of camera flyers thoroughly looking all-around them while under canopy.

Canopies over taking each other is a HUGE factor in CCs, keeping horizontal separation would dramatically reduce the chances of CCs.

In reply to:
5) Ban all HP landings (AKA swooping) on normal skydives and put into place rules that minimize any turns (must fly a standard pattern). Require a separate isolated pass for any type of HP landing.

Separate landing areas, sure, like DZO's are supposed to be doing all ready, but removing traffic and giving individual swoopers priority use of airspace, as restrictive as it seems, only builds bad habits by taking away the reason to be looking for traffic in the first place. It's not the airspace environment that's causing collisions, it's pilots not proactively trying to see-and-avoid other jumpers. Allowing swoopers to become complacent in their own protected airspace bubble isn't going to make them any safer when they do end up having to play nice with others.

What? This makes no sense saying that requiring HP landings be done on separate passes is going to make HP pilots complacent.

In reply to:
Recommendations:

1) Better analysis of what exactly causes a collision or near-miss.

Who?
HP landings
Students and low time jumpers
Rapid down sizers
Small canopies over taking large canopies
Other

Why?
Turns or big turns (swoops) in traffic
Lack of training and experience
Down sized to a canopy that they cannot stay ahead of
Canopies over taking each other in traffic (wide varying canopy speeds)
Erratic unpredictable canopy piloting

What can be done?
HP landings done on isolated separate pass
Mandatory canopy training
Regulate canopy progression
Do everything possible to create environment of horizontal and vertical canopy separation
Do everything possible to create predictable canopy behavior in traffic (predictable patterns with minimal turns).

I personally don't think that anything is going to be done to address this issue by USPA and major DZs any time soon. Canopy collisions and canopy related deaths have been a major issue in this sport for a long time and nothing has or is being done to address the issue.

It would mean putting in rules and regulations which would mean limiting fun under canopy and god forbid we throw a monkey wrench in anyone's fun in the name of safetyCrazy.

The current CCs deaths will be forgotten and swept under the rug here in a few months and it will be business as usual Smile.


(This post was edited by in2jumping on Apr 22, 2011, 10:10 PM)


DocPop  (C License)

Apr 28, 2011, 4:05 PM
Post #111 of 153 (1420 views)
Shortcut
Re: A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

There is very little factual data in these discussions, because it is not reported or DZs are reluctant to release actual details. The problem with this situation is that everyone is making assumptions about the causes of collisions.

I just checked and there are 803 responses in the two Perris incident threads, and over 100 here and most of them are people arguing about semantics, causal factors and what to do.

In the meantime nothing gets done.

I really don't have an answer but as a community, all this arguing amongst ourselves is not doing us any good. If we wait until the perfect solution presents itself we may never do anything.

There are a few things most people can agree on - maybe that's a starting point. If every DZ in the country pledged to put up a canopy safety poster sized at some minimum dimensions (say, 36" x 24") in hi-vis colors and posted in a visible place for all to see that might be a start that hopefully would up set a minimal number of people.

The poster could include and aerial photo of the DZ marking out HP, student and main landing areas, mandate landing pattern directions and rules for each and the consequences for breaches.

This is just an idea as I didn't want to post my observations of in-fighting without at least offering a solution.


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Apr 28, 2011, 10:19 PM
Post #112 of 153 (1396 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I just checked and there are 803 responses in the two Perris incident threads, and over 100 here and most of them are people arguing about semantics, causal factors and what to do.

In the meantime nothing gets done.

I watched a highly skilled CRW Dawg swoop a lightly loaded (1.3:1) PD Lightning and carve it skillfully around a tree. It was incredible. My point here is that any canopy can perform high speed maneuvers. The canopies are not the issue here. Or, maybe stated better, the canopies are not the biggest issue here.

The decision making process of the canopy pilots (that's each and every one us) is the issue we need to address. More stringent guidelines for "ME" to consider when "I" make decisions regarding things like canopy size, wing loading, landing patterns, when and when not to perform HP landings, low turns, hard turns, training, etc. would be helpful. Enforcement of these guidelines will likely be the key to success.

What were talking about here people is a paradigm change. Shocked And, I think were seeing the first steps in changing that paradigm. Cool This will not be easy, and it will not happen over night! Unsure
So, DocPop, these discussions are not in vein.


jinlee  (D License)

May 28, 2012, 7:26 AM
Post #113 of 153 (1241 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

If an Otter held 35 people or even 45 people the pilot would still make only one pass at jump run.

5 pages of discussion about canopies and wingloadings and the simple fact is there is to much congestion in the pattern.

Are these canopy collisions happening more often when there are 3 planes flying and dropping multiple loads as compared to a single caravan letting out one load at a time?

Statistically has anyone looked into how many jumpers on average where dropped in a day at a dz when these canopy collisions occur?

Boogies are great fun and busy dz's are exciting places but the airspace surrounding the landing areas are complete clusterf..ks with jumpers of varying degrees of skill levels.

I've heard many experienced jumpers at boogies say aloud I'm not jumping in that mess.

The PAC750 can do 5/loads an hour, and with one or two Otters flying, throw in a skyvan, and what do you end up with? multiple planes flying and all of these jumpers dropping into a very small area of land.

That you will never change, even with all of the rule changes proposed in this thread.

With the planes flying now it is all about putting up as many loads as fast as possible.

Do the math, how many jumpers are descending into a landing area in 1 hour?

Picture in your mind aircraft attempting to land at JFK or O'hare without air traffic control.

Quote:
3) Implement a NO passing rule, lower canopy has the right of way and you must not over take them.

That is like banning gravity from the dropzone. Everyone wants to get up and out in 10 to 12 minutes, 15 to 20 minutes to altitude is too long. Jump, Land, Pack, do it again, 100 ways, big ways, more ways, more jumpers in the sky and more planes flying. When these accidents happen there was no way to predict the who it wil be and when, and the how.

I suspect most long time jumpers and posters to this thread would privately admit to having said something along the lines of; attending boogies are great, they just don't want to jump at them. Tongue


sundevil777  (D License)

May 28, 2012, 7:53 AM
Post #114 of 153 (1226 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jinlee] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The PAC750 can do 5/loads an hour,

Are you sure that isn't a bit optimistic?


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

May 28, 2012, 10:02 AM
Post #115 of 153 (1194 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Agreed, way optimistic. Smile


virgin-burner

May 28, 2012, 10:05 AM
Post #116 of 153 (1191 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
The PAC750 can do 5/loads an hour,

Are you sure that isn't a bit optimistic?

thay can if they only fly hop n'pops! Wink


Joellercoaster  (D 105792)

May 28, 2012, 10:25 AM
Post #117 of 153 (1184 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jinlee] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

You have a point, in that more planes make for crowded airspace at boogies and big dropzones, and it can get congested. It's not a place to let your guard down too much.

But every canopy collision I can think of (and I've only been skydiving a limited time so this is admittedly only a fraction, but there have been a few now and it's still a strong feeling) has been between people who both got out of the same plane.

Whatever it is that needs fixing, it doesn't just apply to boogies.


ufk22  (D 16168)

May 28, 2012, 10:54 AM
Post #118 of 153 (1176 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jinlee] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Do the math, how many jumpers are descending into a landing area in 1 hour?
In reply to:
If this was true, we should have had tons of canopy collisions back at the WFFC. We didn't.
Why?
No sub-100' canopies and no swooping (as it is currently done).


jinlee  (D License)

May 28, 2012, 11:42 AM
Post #119 of 153 (1155 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnMitchell] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Agreed, way optimistic. Smile

http://www.skydivecsc.com/dropzone/aircraft/

Sure, but the point I made remains.

I'll trade you a Casa for a Skyvan, lets get rid of the PAC750 and use a Caravan instead. it's a bit roomier anyway. But we can lease a 3rd Otter for the weekend on standby if the weather is good.

And as was mentioned above.

In reply to:
There is very little factual data in these discussions, because it is not reported or DZs are reluctant to release actual details. The problem with this situation is that everyone is making assumptions about the causes of collisions.

I just checked and there are 803 responses in the two Perris incident threads, and over 100 here and most of them are people arguing about semantics, causal factors and what to do.

In the meantime nothing gets done.

However you nailed me on the semantics. Wink


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

May 28, 2012, 12:49 PM
Post #120 of 153 (1128 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Joellercoaster] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
But every canopy collision I can think of (and I've only been skydiving a limited time so this is admittedly only a fraction, but there have been a few now and it's still a strong feeling) has been between people who both got out of the same plane.

Whatever it is that needs fixing, it doesn't just apply to boogies.
Absolutely. Some fatal collisions have even been at Cessna DZ's with only 4 jumpers in the air. It's all about pattern discipline, learning to scan properly for traffic and knowing where the most dangerous areas are. It's also about keeping people from swooping in traffic.


jinlee  (D License)

May 28, 2012, 12:59 PM
Post #121 of 153 (1137 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Joellercoaster] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You have a point, in that more planes make for crowded airspace at boogies and big dropzones, and it can get congested. It's not a place to let your guard down too much.

But every canopy collision I can think of (and I've only been skydiving a limited time so this is admittedly only a fraction, but there have been a few now and it's still a strong feeling) has been between people who both got out of the same plane.

Whatever it is that needs fixing, it doesn't just apply to boogies.

I am not saying jumpers from different loads are colliding.

To make a point PD, has increased it's production facilities, so has UPT. Yet they have not allowed their quality controls to slip. Nor have any of the other manufactures that I am aware of. These standards are regulated by much more important governing bodies than USPA.

These products are then being sold at DZ's worldwide, through a network of retailers and that is where the quality control stops., with these jumpers signing their waivers to jump. All liability is now borne by the jumper who may kill himself and somebody else... and that somebody else has also signed a waiver allowing themselves to be taken out.

And from an economical standpoint , so be it, jumpers sign their waivers and the heightened adrenaline fueled atmosphere at the larger DZ's allows this because it is all about getting loads up in the air as quickly as possible with as many jumpers released as possible. And jumpers like it this way.

Who hasn't seen an S&TA working as a Tandem Master running to the packers, shuffling the passengers as quickly as possible to make a 5 minute call and putting on tandem rigs while walking, if not fast walking to make the load.

Everyone is currently caught up in this culture of non-normalcy that without stepping far back from the situation and evaluating the statistics, the industry, and the culture that is pervasive and promoted by the manufacturing industry. A clear view is impossible.

I'd briefly read a post and I do not know which longtime jumper it was but a container manufactories promised her that one day soon she too could jump a micro rig and she has been a long standing well know jumper for many years of experience. Her response was NO, thank you, I might just upsize instead. That was received with shock as the thread explained by the canopy/container retailer/dealer rep.

In another thread a 400-500 jumper wonder is stepping down two HP canopy sizes, and with an additional 400 jumps on that set-up wants a JVX.... is that not insane?

There are jumpers with 5000+ jump that wouldn't do that.

And without a hard statistical analysis it is all simply speculation time and time again. Yet Bill Booth said the gear is so safe, no one should be dying under perfectly flying canopies. Yet a perfectly fly paper napkin is not a perfectly flying canopy. It is an experimental wing 2 or 4 years out of production and people are drying under them and killing innocent others also.

Yet the attrition rate isn't that severe for loads flown. Fatalities have not exceeded 100 jumpers in a year in the US as of yet. So all is good right? and it's an industry that a great many regulars earn their livelihood from.

As a self policing body. USPA and USPA members can not influence the manufactures of these products. Or the drop-zones they jump their gear at. So if all your left with is squabbling over rules to make the sport safer. Seems it's gotten worse and not better in the last 10 years of squabbling.

Take with a grain of salt what I've said, disregard any semantic inaccuracies. I'm only looking at it from the outside looking in. And how can a person with 30 years experience see from a perspective of what a jumper with 2 years in the sport is seeing. Huge difference in the perceived reality I think between the two.

I knew when we stared to see the proximity flying of wing-suit base jumps there would be in increase in wing-suit base fatalities.

What is being promoted really shouldn't be and is being promoted from the manufacturing industry.

Disregard everything I've added, I doubt my opinion will change anything anyway. I simply think the rules proposed will not change a thing.


Marisan  (E 123)

May 28, 2012, 1:09 PM
Post #122 of 153 (1131 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jinlee] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

God Jinlee, that was well saidSmile


jinlee  (D License)

May 28, 2012, 1:28 PM
Post #123 of 153 (1124 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Marisan] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank You.

As a further point I've thought about.

Not to be confrontational or a smart-ass.

I simply wanted to add a different perspective into a discussion with the small hope it might contribute to the discussion.

Not that I am aware of the technical aspect of canopy design, but I believe gear manufactures would profit from a greater sizing scheme than currently used

Why not make the downsizing a lesser degree, it's proactive, it address the downsizing issues, it would generate more canopy sales, and instead of going down 2 canopy sizes as I mentioned it could be 4 sizes where the sizing scheme is simply changed to a lesser degree of downsizing progression with the smaller sized micro canopies.

It wouldn't effect container manufactures, and the canopy industry would be proactive in resolving a problem and increasing sales at the same time.

As Bill Booth mentioned, not much can be changed with he gear, but perhaps the downsizing of sizes could address this problem from a positive perspective if it's is technically possible.


lvintw

May 28, 2012, 1:50 PM
Post #124 of 153 (1116 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jinlee] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Bill Booth said the gear is so safe, no one should be dying under perfectly flying canopies. Yet a perfectly fly paper napkin is not a perfectly flying canopy. It is an experimental wing 2 or 4 years out of production and people are drying under them and killing innocent others also.

Ban the high performance canopies -- and swooping -- and you will save lives. It's simply not part of skydiving and has no place in our sport.


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
May 28, 2012, 7:26 PM
Post #125 of 153 (1063 views)
Shortcut
Re: [lvintw] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
t's simply not part of skydiving and has no place in our sport.

So Crew isn't part of skydiving either? How about accuracy? Wingsuiting, Xrw?

Ban skydiving too, and it'll save lives. After all if people were meant to fly, we'd have wings.

Silly argument isn't it?


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)