First-time jumpers and novice students should have a lower wing loading than
0.95. Experienced students who jump 0P/hybrid may exceed 0.95 but not 1.0 in wing loading (mathematical rounding rules).
Weight of equipment and clothing to be added to the body weight should be 15 kg for jumping with student equipment, any lead is additional.
NB! Remember to check that the exit weight never exceeds the rig and reserves the maximum weight set by the manufacturer.

How the heck are you going to enforce it? When a new jumper shows up, or an old jumper with a new canopy, are you going to take them over the scale and weigh them, then open up their pack and measure their canopy, and then run to the chart to see if they're in compliance? And if they're outside a range by a few feet or kilograms, will you turn them away and refuse to let them jump?

What if someone's canopy tears apart just a hundred jumps from a new downsize category, and they were planning on buying a smaller canopy. Will they now have to purchase another canopy of the same size as before, just to tide them over for 100 jumps until they get to the next downsize checkpoint, and then spend even more money to get the smaller canopy they actually want?

Maybe it's just me - I hate bureaucracy. Make 'em recommendations, but not mandatory.

Maybe it's just me - I hate bureaucracy. Make 'em recommendations, but not mandatory.

Because that's worked brilliantly so far. (!)


John, you let your natural bias against any sort of rules colour your thinking IMO, and it's beginning to show in all your posts which detracts from any real useful message you could get across from your experience.

Chances are if the rules are reasonably leinient they'll be no problem to 95% of normal people like you - but they'll catch the nutters out there. Unreasonable rules either don't pass inspection, or simple wipe themselves out over a short period of being implemented.

You can't assume everyone is rational and right-thinking.


To the OP; I'm not in favour of having canopy sizes simply dictated by jump numbers and wing loading. It's too complex a series of variables for that.

If you have to have that sort of hard and fast rule, it needs to be a 'at no time will anyone, ever, exceed these numbers', and then it just becomes arbitrary - why 1200 jumps for a crossbraced canopy? What happens on that magic jump after 1199 that suddenly makes someone 'ready' for a crossbraced wing?


I don't think there's a simple answer that you can apply in broad strokes to everyone. We have to change the overall skydiving culture of small canopies being cool, of people having access to buying them when they shouldn't, and a united front from the dropzone operators on each individual - no regulation works if some DZs are more lax than others.


The impetus has to come from the jumpers, not the national bodies. Coaches and instructors who refuse to jump with people who are unsafe. Regular jumpers who refuse to get on a plane with the 200 jump wonder who's just bought a 99.

Downsizing is about jump numbers and weight. It's also about aptitude, practice, time spent flying, physique, intelligence, reaction to instruction and a thousand other things.

Maybe people shouldn't be able to buy their own canopies... maybe they need to have counter signitures from instructors, coaches or Operators to say 'yup, I agree this guy is ready for this next canopy'... at the very least, it would force the jumper in question to vet their choice through at least one other individual.

(And no. I know this wouldn't work in the states because everyone would sue each other...We really need a rolling eyes smilie... )

Newer jumpers don't know any better these days, and the number of incidents (broken legs etc) seems to have gone down.

On a completely different note, will these restrictions apply only to Norwegian jumpers or will visiting jumpers find these rules imposed on them??

......, eating hotdogs...

Nobody stops a doctor from getting his instrument rating, buying a Mooney or Cirrus, and going out and getting himself killed in hard IFR over the mountains at night.

The system has gotten some tweaks over the years and seems to be working fairly smoothly now. Newer jumpers don't know any better these days, and the number of incidents (broken legs etc) seems to have gone down.

After reading the thread I've only got one question left:

What's so bad about a max. WL of 1.4?

I mean, unless you're going to be an upper end competitive swooper (don't even get me started about CReW WL's) what would you need a higher WL for?

Who the heck are you to tell other experienced capable jumpers what they can jump?

After reading the thread I've only got one question left:

What's so bad about a max. WL of 1.4?

I mean, unless you're going to be an upper end competitive swooper (don't even get me started about CReW WL's) what would you need a higher WL for?

Why 1.4 lets make it 2.0 ... oh and you can't drive a car with more that 1600cc and 50bhp (why does anyone EVER need to go faster than the speed limit?)...

the training required to fly a canopy is severly lacking, and if it was brought up to a proportionate level to that of earning an IFR ticket, we wouldn't need any restrictions on canopy selection.

Slapping jump number restrictions on is not really helping the problem

'Personal freedom' is a machismo bullshit argument. You have the freedom to jump at more DZ and for less money than anywhere else in the world. If a canopy type/WL restriction was introduced, let's say based on B Germains chart, right off student status you would be able to jump canopies and WL with performance that's better than most 20 years ago. By 200 jumps, you'll be exceeding what jumpers had 20 years ago. Let's keep in mind that 20 years ago, skydiving had been alive, well, and prospering for better than 30 years, so jumpers for the first 30 years found that level of canopy performance to be 'acceptable' such that they kept jumping.

And below each weight group, you'll have the maximum size of canopy the jumper is allowed to jump.

If someone demonstrates the skills and awareness to move to another canopy, they shouldn't be held back by some generic chart.

Fun. Freedom. Who the heck are you to tell other experienced capable jumpers what they can jump?

Fun. Freedom. Who the heck are you to tell other experienced capable jumpers what they can jump?

>Who the heck are you to tell other experienced capable jumpers what they can jump?

Could be a DZO who wants to reduce the odds of him being sued again.
Could be an organizer who wants to reduce the risk of canopy collision for people on their bigway.
Could be a licensing organization who sets competence standards for various levels of canopy loading.
Could be a demo organizer who wants his jumpers to land somewhere that's incompatible with 2 to 1 loaded canopies.

Lots of potential reasons.

Absolutely.

But what are the specific skills required to progress and by what process does someone demonstrate proficiency? How do you ensure that a standard is used to properly train and evaluate canopy pilots? What is that standard?

Couldn't Norway adopt this?:

http://www.bigairsportz.com/pdf/bas-sizingchart.pdf

This is like those zero-tolerance policies

Some old people become unfit to drive a car. So should all old people have their licenses revoked when the turn 70? Or should we maybe test them for competency, and let those who can handle themselves safely, continue to drive? That's an arbitrary versus individualized comparison. The former is unfair to many because of a few, and the latter restricts only those who deserve to be.

The personal judgment of instructors, safety officers, and other experienced jumpers

Setting the standard for today, based upon what canopy performance was 20 to 30 years ago, is an invalid and bad argument. (Notice how I didn't use pejorative terms like you did.) If we accept that idea, we would be putting students out on static lines under T-10's, then making them transition to Paracommanders for their first 100 jumps before moving to a ram-air.

Fun and freedom are the essential essence of this sport. If you start taking that away from jumpers, you will gut the spirit that makes it so great.

First I have practical suggestions for any country wanting to be downsizing Nazis:
(Downsizing Quislings? Yes, I chose my words to be just a little harsh.)

Or it would be OK to have a system that allows almost unlimited downsizing, IF one has demonstrated going through downsizing canopy control exercises.

But it wasn't going to actually kill me unless I did something stupid.

If there were downsizing rules, how would they take into account that I was already used to flight vehicles requiring precise control? Being able to fly aerobatics or land a taildragger aircraft doesn't make you a canopy pilot, but it should help one avoid stupid errors of turning into the ground because of stabbing a toggle.

Nobody stops a doctor....Mountain climbers get to go out and kill themselves in the mountains, to do routes they aren't ready for.

Why would we skydivers be discriminated against just because our toys are cheaper, or it is tougher for us to kill ourselves in more expensive ways?

Not everyone goes on to make thousands of jumps, or do 250 jumps a year.

Let people have some fun instead of saying that they can't try out cool canopies until they've been in the sport a decade.

It is nice to try out canopies you shouldn't be flying regularly, ....

Dear skydivers out there.

The safety committee for the Norwegian Air-sports Federation has come up with a suggestion to new rules for the norwegian jumpers,

As in: Spend less time forcing more laws of man on your jumpers and more time helping them learn the laws of nature.

You know, like Newton's laws of motion generally and how to fly an aircraft specifically.

Instead of worrying about what wing they're flying, how about paying more attention to how they're flying it?

In the US there is this basically psychotic notion that parachutists must focus on learning fun freefall skills before they learn survival parachuting skills.

New thinking requires going back to the future. No rides "to the top of Fun Mountain" until they have graduated from Basic Flight Training consisting of static line and/or hop and pop freefalls for 20-30-50-however many jumps it takes them to learn how to fly their inflatable aircraft -- and understand private pilot-level aerodynamics and flight control techniques.

If you instead took all of the time, treasure and brain cells you're proposing to burn through on this many-times-proven useless exercise and invested it in helping your jumpers to learn how to fly better, this would all go a lot better.

It's simple really...you set the rules and everybody abides by them.

Removing them all together isn't really helping the problem either, It's a two-pronged approach, combining the continuing education AND jump number based canopy/Wl restrictions. To move forward without one or the other isn't going to solve the problem

the best alternative we have a is a conservative jump numbner requirement, one where we can safely assume that 'most' jumpers at that point have achieved 'x' level of skill under canopy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


the best alternative we have a is a conservative jump numbner requirement, one where we can safely assume that 'most' jumpers at that point have achieved 'x' level of skill under canopy.

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


My issue is that I don't think that is a safe assumption. Any "assumption" of skill level is fraught with risk.

I believe we really need to have some way of assessing skill by demonstration. And yes, I realize the implications of this, but it would be the gold standard.

Rules alone are not going to help much.

In addition to updating student programs to emphasize more CC training, we need ongoing CC education to reinforce survival skills and to provide better training opportunities for those who want to fly HP canopies.

I do have an observation.

I believe part of the problem is many of the people who have, in the past, made poor canopy choices and learned to fly those canopies by the seat of their pants and yet somehow have come through the other side unscathed.

Now those people have hundreds and sometimes even thousands of jumps with nary a scratch and because they got away with it they encourage newer jumpers to do the same.

What I have noticed is that those jumpers don't always take a public stand but instead give the old pat-on-the-back, a wink and a wisper to the noob saying ...."don't worry about those old conservative guys. They're just fun haters"

And the problem just continues to perpetuate.

This may not be a problem every where but over recent years I've witnessed it at several DZs.

What units are they using for canopy size and WL?



.

You don't need new rules.

You need new THINKING.

Instead, you and your association are following the tired old and provably unproductive path of imposing more rules that make ever more demands not just on the jumpers who are doing this for FUN but on the association that allegedly serves to encourage said fun.

Seriously, your association is proposing to embark on a path of creating a complicated clusterfink of largely unenforcible rules that will not change anything for the better because you're targeting the parachute, not the pilot,

If you instead took all of the time, treasure and brain cells you're proposing to burn through on this many-times-proven useless exercise and invested it in helping your jumpers to learn how to fly better, this would all go a lot better.

44

Did you mean 'let's make it 1.0'? Makes more sense that way.

There are a lot of the usual regulation/no regulation comments on this thread. However, when I first saw this thread I was hoping people with more experience (especially smaller jumpers) would respond to one of the OPs main points which is the much higher restriction on smaller jumpers.

I know there is not a linear progression because a smaller canopy will behave more aggressively at the same wing-loading as a larger canopy. However, at least based on personal experience, it does not seem to be nearly as dramatic as this chart or the SIM makes it out to be.

I was so concerned for the "big jump" from a 164 to 150. And then from a 150 to a 135. And then from a 135 to a 119. But at my size, I barely noticed a difference at all in these progressions. Yet the SIM insists that a 150 square foot canopy is high performance regardless of wing-loading.

What I did notice is that I could actually make forward progress above 1000 feet on a moderately windy day. I also noticed that landing with some forward speed on a regular basis makes it easier for me to land a little more gracefully.

While many people (including me) probably don't need something much below 109 square feet (1.25ish for me) before 1200 jumps, some talented smaller jumpers deserve to be able to make the progression the larger jumpers are allowed/encouraged to make.

But I only have 700 jumps and am not an expert. Could someone with more experience dealing with smaller jumpers and their canopy progression weigh in on this issue?

Thanks!

Yes, please. It would be great to hear your opinions on this matter. As Becka says: I too fall under the category of "smaller jumper", and I spent my entire student status landing backwards due to winds and low wing loading.

My point is: I spent my first good 200 jumps feeling controlled by the canopy. In wind and turbulent weather, I got stuck. I could forget any input on both harness and risers - it was way to heavy.

When I got on the 135, I suddenly felt like I was the pilot. My landings improved dramatically, as in I suddenly had the speed to really fly out the canopy, with our without wind.

Not just hang under it as a helpless little toy. ....However, should I have stayed on the 170 when that made me feel out of control?

Where I had to learn backward accuracy-landings because I drifted backwards in my landings?

Wait till I had 800 jumps before I could ever bother trying to touch the risers?

And I could not wait to downsize,....

The point is: if the rules misses out on this, a smaller jumper will have the bare minimum of wingload, and in many cases IMO, feel that he or she barely controls the thing above their head. Is that safe?

Also, the speed makes it easier to land. If I miscalculate, I only adjust. With my spectre 150, I had to hit the exact sweet spot for it to land as smoothly as my 135 does every time.

Now how do you get the "instructors" and the DZOs AND the S&TAs to do that. Those are the guys that are supposed to be doing that training and it's not getting done in the big scheme of things. Ask yourself why.

You guys are insanely short-changing our youngsters. They only know what you teach them until they can make intelligent decisions for themselves. In your mad rush to prove how brave and "cool" you are, you shoot them in the foot and do them a great disservice by propagating that "faster is cooler" and "you need to downsize now" idiocy. You are implanting that idiocy into their young minds bringing them up to think that those are intelligent decisions. They base their future on what you are telling them now.

We need the rules because you bozos ignore the recommendations. Yes, you'll ignore the rules too won't you?
Well, at least until a greater power puts the skids on it. Have fun with that.

Sounds like you were put into the air when you should have been sitting on the ground.

Better decision making would have avoided that "getting stuck".

This I don't understand. What could be safer than slow and soft on landings?

I guess it's a matter of perspective, isn't it?

Again...decision making

Why is that? Riser control works on every canopy. It appears what you are saying is that you didn't learn a lot on canopy flight before you downsized. THAT is the reason for the rules.

Too many don't bother to learn and practice at a slower pace before they throw themselves into a higher-paced canopy....injuries and fatalities are sometimes the result of that and the rules being proposed are trying to minimize that.

All too common. Fortunately YOU have survived so far. Some others don't.

Yes. Much safer than putting them into a fast-paced canopy that is less forgiving of errors.

... oh and you can't drive a car with more that 1600cc and 50bhp (why does anyone EVER need to go faster than the speed limit?)...

'Miscalculate' is a key word here. Fortunately, so far you have been able to correct in time. Faster gives less time for corrections, obviously.

Being allowed to fly a smaller copy is more like being allowed to ride a high performance bike (or drive a fast car).

Why is it either or? Either you are in a slow and safe canopy, or you're playing with death. The difference in speed from a 150 to a 135, is not that big.

It is less forgiving, yes, but still, it's not a death machine when treated conservatively.

You can kill yourself in a navigator 260 as well, and in a 135, and in a 78. Flying a 135 does not mean that one is pushing it, automatically. In my case, It's not like I'm doing 240 hook-turns just because I downsized.

...personally found it easier to land when I had a bit more wing load. Am I the only one? I'd like to hear others thoughts on this, that have experienced similar things...

...can't I fly a canopy with a bit more wing load when I do straight-approach landings?

These debates tend to go this direction. Faster canopies = higher risk. Of course they do. But as in all other aspects of this sport, risk can be minimized by advancing gradually, with the help of more skilled instructors on so on.

One should be able to question wing loading-issues without being identified as a crazy soon-to-be-statistic.

Also, I believe there are more factors to be considered than the number itself, e.g. amount of focus piloting has been given, coaching, skills, attitudes and so on.

...except for the comments regarding myself. (As does every self-obsessed skydiver).

I'd like to hear some comments regarding lighter wing load versus heavier,

I really appreciate you responding to the OPs comments and I know you are trying to make the point of erring on the side of caution, but I believe you being a bit disingenuous. (I really enjoy reading your comments and believe you make good points for some situations, but you are not addressing the particular issue that was brought up in this thread.) The "softness" of the landing is not the reason that smaller jumpers should have somewhat lower wing-loading at the same experience/skill level as a larger jumper. It is the responsiveness when flying it.

There are many places where it would take 20 years for a very active small jumper to get her A license and the rest of the 500 jumps recommended by the SIM or required by these new rules if she were to sit every time her .8 wing-loaded canopy would fly backwards.

If there is a way for this same jumper to fly safely on a smaller (but still relatively docile canopy), why should her progression be so limited?

Finally, if it is so dangerous for this small jumper to be at 1.3 or 1.4 wing-loading before 1200 jumps, how on earth is it okay for the guy weighing 117 kg to be at that wing-loading with 201 jumps? Shouldn't he be required/recommended to have "slower and softer" landings too?

But that's not really what I'm saying, so I am sorry if it came across that way. I am saying that currently many recommendations/rules will seriously restrict many smaller jumpers and there is no evidence being shown to us that once you get to a certain square footage it doesn't matter if you have a 100 lb exit weight or a 160 lb exit weight. That doesn't seem right.

I certainly am not saying that because of that, the small jumper with the windy conditions should put themselves in a bad situation. Elevator or backwards landings are even more likely to slow progress as is stupid fast downsizing.

What I AM saying is that this particular problem with over restriction of smaller jumpers also creates bad situations. It would be nice if someone considered this in terms of recommendations for students and novices.



I am fine with needing some quantification. I just think that some consideration should be given to how the smaller end of the scale is calculated. And I absolutely agree with you on the downsizing process. Short-cuts are not the solution.

We are talking about rapid downsizing from conservative to radical loadings. We are discussing potential rules to enforce a more conservative downloading progression.

It is less forgiving, yes, but still, it's not a death machine when treated conservatively.

Conservatively. This idea of more strict rules for downsizing all came about because people are NOT treating them conservatively. It's come about because people fail to realize that not every landing is going to conservative. I don't know of many people who fly hot rods because they want to be conservative with the performance capabilities.

You can kill yourself in a navigator 260 as well, and in a 135, and in a 78. Flying a 135 does not mean that one is pushing it, automatically. In my case, It's not like I'm doing 240 hook-turns just because I downsized.

You may not realize how often that comment is used to justify rapid downsizing. We hear it all the time.

...personally found it easier to land when I had a bit more wing load. Am I the only one? I'd like to hear others thoughts on this, that have experienced similar things...

Please define "easier". It's an ambiguous term.
Does your definition also include being able to set it down in a small area...say, somebody's backyard with trees and fences and power lines around it?

Why should flying a parachute be any different? Case in point, countries that currently have WL limitations and tiered canopy licenses in place have lower incident rates (I think it's the Swiss that have the best system).

Nobody stops a doctor from getting his instrument rating, buying a Mooney or Cirrus, and going out and getting himself killed in hard IFR over the mountains at night.

But I tell you what..... Make a high performance signoff and a "complex" signoff for parachutes and then I'll agree you are making progress.... Cause right now all we have is the Dr that has 100 jumps being able to buy a Velo.

Sounds like to me now that you and Becka are on a good track. SOunds like you guys have valid oncerns. I particularly like the part about you guys taking things with a conservative approach.


As you can tell, I'm one of the conservative old fuddy-duddys. I'm probably well-known for always giving the uber-conservative answers.


So, since we haven't heard back from the OP in a few days, we can't tell if there has been any further discussion at home on modifying their tables to be more reasonable for all concerned.

Let's see how they are going to address your concerns and resolve that already-highlighted issue of wingloadings for light vs heavy jumpers.

I'm interested on how the discussion is going and what the results are going to be.

Peace,
Andy

I'm just saying, and I know people will give me crap for this, that us having fun in the sky, is not a "right we have". It's a privilege that can be taken away. The more people that kill themselves and others in this sport, the harder it gets to argue that it's a good thing. That's how society's become. Risk is seen as unnecessary...

...

Such a course takes more and better thinking than to just impose more rules, but it will yield better results.

...

Pretty much the same stuff, really. In order to earn your b-license, you need to do a total of 7 canopy-jumps (pull higher), and do stuff like collapse, stall, different kind of input, precision-landings and so on. However, in practice, these jumps are often compressed into two or three jumps. In other words; not really working. However, as part of the new regulations that are coming now, they are developing a canopy course in addition to the required jumps, which is obligatory.

Actually, after you've earned your b-license, there's not really any more requirements you need to do, canopy-wise, to continue to C-license. However, they are now suggestion to implement a canopy course obligatory for those who wish to downsize/go for high-performance landings in the future/touch any form of risers or do turns in the landings. They are suggesting that you have a minimum of 200 jumps before you attend the course. In other words: an advanced canopy course.

Well, the canopy-exercises you need to do, have to be filmed/witness by your instructor, and thorough feedback is required. The student can be asked to do the jumps all over again if the instructor does not feel they have understood the implications of the different exercises....

Lynn, get the excess of your steering lines fingetrapped. As it is it doesn't look sexy

Besides that, thanks for raising the discussion, and thanks for them nice pictures

Hej Linn,

I have spent a great deal of time working on this subject, and I must break it to you, this is much to simplified. I understand the desire to make things simple, however the issue is not simple.

Here is a link to my downsizing chart. The concept is based on the Swedish chart, however the numbers are not as conservative, and there is a great deal of supplementary text that help explain how to use the chart.

http://bigairsportz.com/pdf/bas-sizingchart.pdf

Please feel free to contact me to discuss this in detail. We are discussing the possibility of a trip to Norway this July. Perhaps we can meet up!

Sincerely,
Brian Germain

HAHA!!! That was what you noticed with that scenery?! It's like noticing the shoes on a drop-dead gorgeous lady going **** on you. Hahaha... Awesome.

FYI: I got them fixed last summer ;)

Leave it ti him to keep a sharp eye out.

....and untwist the brake lines.

The second one...yes. that's it.
And yes, it's been posted here. That's where I saw it before...somewhere on here.

the people that scare me the most are the ones that say "the parachute's only there to bring me to the ground safely".

....and why not make that education mandatory. apparently, it's the biggest killer in the sport, so it's in your best interest, isnt it!?

Why is that? That's the whole purpose for a parachute - to bring me to the ground safely. Do you assume those people have no clue on safe canopy flight?

it does in fact imply they're only interested in the freefall-part of the skydive, and the parachute is their freefall-fun-vehicle, used for only that. and that is wrong.

it does in fact imply they're only interested in the freefall-part of the skydive, and the parachute is their freefall-fun-vehicle, used for only that. and that is wrong.

I agree with you there. I see a fair number of jumpers (mostly FS girls it seems), who fly smaller stilettos and similar, but never "do" anything with them.

I see a fair number of jumpers (mostly FS girls it seems), who fly smaller stilettos and similar, but never "do" anything with them.

I've always thought it is smarter in that case to upsize a bit, say to a 135-150ish pilot/safire. Just because in the event that you really have to fly your canopy, like when you're getting cut-off or landing out or landing with a little bit of wind, these jumpers have issues.