Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Safety rules and USPA

 


sooperswooper  (D 31847)

Mar 7, 2012, 10:07 AM
Post #1 of 142 (3516 views)
Shortcut
Safety rules and USPA Can't Post

What do you guys think about the new canopy proficiency card to obtain a B license?
Is this for the skydivers safety? Or a way to charge more and more money?
If i complete the 8 or 10 jumps required on the card flying a 240 at (0.3 WL) is it really useful when after a week I decide to go for a high performance canopy at a WL of 2.5?
Considering that I can fly a crossfire 99 (2.5 WL) with just 25 jumps and swoop the shit out of it....why is the proficiency card required?
Why so many rules?
Why so much money for a stupid piece of paper that does nothing? Why are Licenses so expensive?
Is USPA on the skydivers side or their on wallet side?


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 7, 2012, 10:17 AM
Post #2 of 142 (3457 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sooperswooper] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

With a name like sooperswooper, registration and first post both today, why should anyone take you seriously?


Ron

Mar 7, 2012, 10:45 AM
Post #3 of 142 (3436 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Still he raises good points.

The USPA is fucked up when it comes to teaching canopy control. The methods and process that they use are backwards and often implemented after the fact.

There is ZERO reason not to have a HP canopy sign off just like they do in aviation....


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 7, 2012, 10:58 AM
Post #4 of 142 (3426 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sooperswooper] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>If i complete the 8 or 10 jumps required on the card flying a 240 at (0.3 WL) is it
>really useful when after a week I decide to go for a high performance canopy at a WL
>of 2.5?

Yes. You'll still probably hurt yourself, but some education is better than none.

>Considering that I can fly a crossfire 99 (2.5 WL) with just 25 jumps and swoop the
>shit out of it....why is the proficiency card required?

Because most people are not that stupid.

>Why so many rules?

Because so many deaths.

>Why so much money for a stupid piece of paper that does nothing?

Then don't get one.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Mar 7, 2012, 1:40 PM
Post #5 of 142 (3381 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Ron,

If you search you will see that I have said this numerous times about the card. It is a starting point for canopy continueing education. I would support c and maybe D license canopy cards as well. and as you mentioned maybe a wingload proficiency card.

The problem is it is a very slow moving process and there has to be an enormous amount of give and take.

I would encourage any feedback you have on any topic but specifically canopy. Just PM me or even call me on my cell it isnt hard to find. I will let you know where we are and how we got there. But trust me many on the board and specifically S&T committee have nothing but good intentions when trying to tackle a problem that has put us way behind the curve, and now it is catch up time.

I think it should start by adding canopy proficiency to all instructor ratings, especially AFFI courses. That would include ground and air evaluations. We must teach those who are going to teach canopy what to teach and how. Again, this is no simple one day fix, if it were I would be in line with you.

This is very near and dear to my heart and I will listen to any constructive feedback you or anyone else has trust me, but to paint the USPA and BOD with one brush is a bit unfair. Just come to a meeting and see how much goes into it. I urge you to get involved, and that could be as easy as calling me and flaming me on the phone. I promise I will let your point of view be heard.

Sorry for the rant, I am not being aggresive, I just know how much time and energy has gone into what we have so far. It is not what I wanted believe me but it is a comprimised starting point.

Rich Winstock
USPA National Director


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Mar 7, 2012, 1:45 PM
Post #6 of 142 (3376 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sooperswooper] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

As much as I would love to answer every question you posed, it would take me too long for each one. I would be happy to discuss it with you if you are serious and not just stirring the pot.

There is an entire thread on the card that will answer the majority of your thoughts. But I will tell you money has absolutely ZERO to do with it. It has more to do with a statistical trend that is very alarming and has become USPA's specifically the Safety and Training Committee's responsibility and obligation to address.

Rich Winstock
USPA National Director


DiverMike  (C 40024)

Mar 7, 2012, 2:04 PM
Post #7 of 142 (3356 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It has more to do with a statistical trend that is very alarming

How many people working on their 'B' license in the last 3 years are on the fatality list? It seems there are significantly more highly experienced skydivers on small canopies getting on the list, most of whom have taken or taught canopy control courses.

I applaud USPA's effort to promote safety by educating skydivers. It may be by focusing on canopy control courses significant injuries might go down, but it will be the teachers and not the students who benefit as they seem to be the ones getting injured and/or dying.


Psychonaut  (C License)

Mar 7, 2012, 2:08 PM
Post #8 of 142 (3353 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sooperswooper] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Considering that I can fly a crossfire 99 (2.5 WL) with just 25 jumps and swoop the shit out of it....why is the proficiency card required?

I would love video from the gopro you're wearing also.


piisfish

Mar 7, 2012, 2:18 PM
Post #9 of 142 (3345 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sooperswooper] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

What is your naked weight ? You must be missing a couple of body parts to load a 240 at 0.3 Tongue


Ron

Mar 7, 2012, 2:43 PM
Post #10 of 142 (3328 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I would encourage any feedback you have on any topic but specifically canopy. Just PM me or even call me on my cell it isnt hard to find.

Just search "Wingload BSR". Very easy to do and you will see I have been talking about the problem and what to do since 2003 that's almost 10 years now.

Quote:
The problem is it is a very slow moving process

Which is why the USPA should have started 10 years ago and actually done something not something half assed.

Day late and a dollar short sound familiar?

Quote:
but to paint the USPA and BOD with one brush is a bit unfair.

No it is not when they have been ignoring the problem and suggestions from its members for 10 years

Quote:
I urge you to get involved

I have been involved... Mostly been ignored. I am tired of the USPA being owned by the DZO's, PIA and the manufacturers. My first suggestion was sent to the USPA almost 10 years ago.

And you may remember that I had thrown my hat into the ring for the SERD position. I figured that *might* be the only way to get the USPA BOD out of the bed of the PIA and manufacturers..... But you will notice the guy selected happens to WORK for PD... So much for that huh? Nothing against AL... But the USPA just made a selection that shows how much PD owns the USPA BOD.

Quote:
Sorry for the rant, I am not being aggresive, I just know how much time and energy has gone into what we have so far.

Call me in 10 years and tell me about 'effort'... My phone number should not be hard to find, it was in your email inbox.


sooperswooper  (D 31847)

Mar 7, 2012, 4:57 PM
Post #11 of 142 (3286 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

I was giving examples....I actually have around 600 jumps and I fly a safire 2 119 at a WL of 1.5


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 7, 2012, 5:59 PM
Post #12 of 142 (3260 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The problem is it is a very slow moving process and there has to be an enormous amount of give and take.

Oh yeah, between who? If the BOD would open their eyes, there would be no 'give and take', there would be a WL BSR, and a requirement to take an additional canopy control course for each license.

This isn't a case of people trying to get an issue to pass a popular vote of the general public, this is essentailly a dictatorship, where the BOD does have the power to 'just do it', with or without anyone's approval.

I'll point to that BS $10k 'loan' for the USPA demo team as proof of what I'm saying.

Despite all this, there had been virtually zero action on this issue for over a decade. I can recall a poster that was printed, and a suggestion from the USPA for everyone to 'take a canopy control course', even though the USPA did not provide a courses or even a syllabus for someone else to teach a course.

There was an interesting comment in the wingsuit forum from a poster who said a USPA RD was at his DZ asking around about a wingsuit coach rating. He wondered why they would be there as the wingsuit culture at that DZ was, in his own words, pitiful. My immedaite thought was why the BOD wasn't looking to the established expert wingsuiters we have in the community, the ones who work with first flight students every day, and have the most experience with wingsuits and wingsuit training.

Of course the answer was that the BOD can't seem to pull it's head out of it's own ass and do something smart. Take the canopy control course issue. I'm willing to bet money that if anyone had called Scott Miller, Jimmy Tranter, Luigi Cani, Jim Slaton or Brian Germain 10 years ago, any one of them would have gladly helped to develop a 'standard' canopy control course that could have been folded into the licensing program. Instead, they kept themsevles locked in closed sessions, sure they were all experts in everything they needed to know, and came up with a poster. Brilliant.

I'll quote one of my personal heros, Don Schwab, S&TA at my first DZ. About 2 or 3 years into the sport, I had a question about break-offs from freefly jumps (which was still very new at the time), and this is what my 'expert' S&TA said to me, "I have no idea, you're the freeflyer, not me. Truth is, if anyone esle asked me that question, I probably would have told them to go ask you".

That summed it up for me. If you want the best results, get the best person for the job. Sometimes it's you, other times it's someone else, but one way you can always succeed is to make sure the best candidate is the one who gets the job.

Give it up USPA. Call in the experts, and defer to their expertise.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 7, 2012, 10:41 PM
Post #13 of 142 (3217 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DiverMike] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How many people working on their 'B' license in the last 3 years are on the fatality list?

Maybe those young jumpers today meeting the requirements for CC will recognize the benefits and take it to heart to help avoid being one of those hurting themselves in the future.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 7, 2012, 10:50 PM
Post #14 of 142 (3215 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
The problem is it is a very slow moving process and there has to be an enormous amount of give and take.

Oh yeah, between who? If the BOD would open their eyes, there would be no 'give and take', there would be a WL BSR, and a requirement to take an additional canopy control course for each license.

This isn't a case of people trying to get an issue to pass a popular vote of the general public, this is essentailly a dictatorship, where the BOD does have the power to 'just do it', with or without anyone's approval.

I'll point to that BS $10k 'loan' for the USPA demo team as proof of what I'm saying.

Despite all this, there had been virtually zero action on this issue for over a decade. I can recall a poster that was printed, and a suggestion from the USPA for everyone to 'take a canopy control course', even though the USPA did not provide a courses or even a syllabus for someone else to teach a course.
.
.
.
.
Of course the answer was that the BOD can't seem to pull it's head out of it's own ass and do something smart. Take the canopy control course issue. I'm willing to bet money that if anyone had called Scott Miller, Jimmy Tranter, Luigi Cani, Jim Slaton or Brian Germain 10 years ago, any one of them would have gladly helped to develop a 'standard' canopy control course that could have been folded into the licensing program. Instead, they kept themsevles locked in closed sessions, sure they were all experts in everything they needed to know, and came up with a poster. Brilliant.

Give it up USPA. Call in the experts, and defer to their expertise.

Now how could anyone argue against any of that?
Thanks for printing my thoughts for me.
USDZOA? USPIAA?


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Mar 8, 2012, 6:00 AM
Post #15 of 142 (3151 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sooperswooper] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What do you guys think about the new canopy proficiency card to obtain a B license?

I think it's a great idea. Been teaching canopy control courses covering the same stuff at our dz for over three years and there has been a definite improvement in pattern and landing area chaos. Not to mention those jumpers who had landing issues prior but now land fine.

In reply to:
Or a way to charge more and more money?

Can't blame USPA for that. The requirements can be completed without taking a canopy control course - at some smaller dzs that could be for the cost of the jumps and some beer for the instructor. The cost of a canopy course is set by the dz or the instructors doing it - not USPA.

In reply to:
If i complete the 8 or 10 jumps required on the card

The card is structured for five jumps. It can all be done in 4 hop and pops.

In reply to:
Considering that I can fly a crossfire 99 (2.5 WL) with just 25 jumps and swoop the shit out of it....why is the proficiency card required?

Good question. I'd love to hear some valid reasons why there isn't a BSR that says you can't fly that wingloading until you have a D license.

But really, at 25 jumps you should know that a Crossfire at 2.5 flies like shit....


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Mar 8, 2012, 7:20 AM
Post #16 of 142 (3118 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Dave,
I would like to give you some insight on something that is starting to shape up in the wingsuit community, and let me know if the steps being taking are what you are referring to.

I was made the Chair of a Sub-Committee to look into the Wing Suit Instructor Rating. The proposal was put on the agenda and brought forward by DSE. Prior to the meeting I made it a point to go to Elsinore and see his school, look at the material, and speak to him one on one. I wanted to be as educated as possible mainly because I am not an expert in the WS arena.

The Safety and Training Committee went round and round ultimately not wanting to make a knee jerk vote we formed a committee to look into it further. NOTE: I think it may have gone through based on my personal opinions.

Since the meeting the following BOD members are on the committee (Randy Allison, Tony Thacker, Meriah Eakins, Sherry Buthcer, and myself) as of now DSE and Taya Weiss (who were at the meeting) are advisors.

I felt it important to reach out to the whole comunity and as you say get the experts to chime in. Currently, I have a list of 20 Plus recommended advisors who are supposedly the most knowledgable and experienced in the WS community. We are in the process of notifying the advisors and explaining we will be asking for their advice. Unfortunately, that is as far as we have gotten. We are still defining our goals, I am NOT looking for any input on this topic here as I will ask at the right time in the WS threads. All I am pointing out is that we are trying to do what you are referring to.

The problem is so many members are upset with past actions that they are painting every BOD member as being an entrenched, out for themself, asshole. So if anyone new gets on there with good intentions they are hung out to defend themselves from a discouraged, disappointed, and feedup membership.

If you were elected tomorrow, you couldnt solve all the problems that exist. You would be one voice, and trust me it is very bothersome at times. All I can say is I hear the frustration from membership and I get it.


tdog  (D 28800)

Mar 8, 2012, 7:56 AM
Post #17 of 142 (3103 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

There is ZERO reason not to have a HP canopy sign off just like they do in aviation....

It won't help. Unsure Don't waste your time...

Last year I lost two friends to swooping. Real good friends.

One had thousands of jumps and was a well respected canopy pilot and swooper that no one thought was pushing the limits. He was a go-to guy on canopy control and coached others and was the first to jump on someone else for doing something stupid (landing the wrong direction, etc)...

The other died on a jump while being coached (video of landings) by a world champion.

Both were USPA pro rated pilots on small canopies.

The USPA, nor any of the world experts, could make a signoff form that would have helped with the highly personalized coaching these jumpers had received. I know in my heart many factors that contributed to the incidents, but these things are very personal and cannot be regulated.

There certainly is a group of skydivers out there that are swooping "way too young", who everyone talks about around the DZ, or flames here online. Some of them get hurt. Maybe of the S&TA or DZO would ground these people (with the possible help of a signoff form to justify their actions) - we might be able to save these people from themselves... But the DZO and S&TA should be the ones doing this already and I question if a new form will inspire them to do it when they are not doing it now. My home DZ would ground someone in a heartbeat (I have seen the pilot, turn around, and tell a jumper the DZO just called up and said to not let the person out of the plane when the DZO found out the canopy they were jumping), but a DZ I know of nearby follows no rules and could care less about USPA paperwork, and lets people do what they want. The DZO, not the USPA, sets the attitude.

There are many, many swoopers dieing or getting hurt, who would be the ones qualified to write the standards that USPA would use for any signoff.

Unfortunately, the USPA, in my opinion, will not be able to help much with swooping injuries, as the coaching is way too advanced for some check off paperwork. However, there have been some pretty serious canopy collisions in the last few years, and that is something that could be addressed with licence-specific coaching... And maybe some of the toggle-whip low turns...


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 8, 2012, 8:13 AM
Post #18 of 142 (3097 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Dave,
I would like to give you some insight on something that is starting to shape up in the wingsuit community

Long before wingsuits became a problem (or even a viable reality), canopies were the leading killer of skydivers. What's shaping up in that community? Who's the chair of what comittee to solve that problem? What experts have you called in to establish a canopy coach rating, or even just a canopy control course that any instructor could teach?

Quote:
If you were elected tomorrow, you couldnt solve all the problems that exist.

I never claimed to be able to, or even concerned out the majority of problems. I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I point out the lack of progress or attention to the deadliest, longest standing problem in the sport.

It's a HUGE, dare I say MASSIVE oversight on the part of the BOD for many, many years, and through several administrations. There's no excuse for it, and the fact that so much time and attention has been focused on freefall based activites (both in student training and beyond) only adds insult to injury.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Mar 8, 2012, 8:23 AM
Post #19 of 142 (3086 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

There is no dought that we are behind the curve with canopy education. That is what we are trying to catch up with. I have personally spoken to dozens and dozens of canopy experts, all of the top guys. That is the model I used in presenting the canopy card as a starting point on the canopy front. My next order of business is to implememt canopy education to our new instructors. I want to implement canopy evaluations for knowledge and ability within the instructor curriculium. I am working on it. With regard to canopy it is on the top of my list.

With regard to wingsuits, I see this as ten years ago with canopy and I see an oportunity to get ahead of the curve. That is why I am getting involved with the wing suit instructor proposals. I see this as the opportunity to look back in ten years and say we did it correct.

I think we are on the same page, I just wish it was easier to work with the community in a positive fashion. It seems that most are so discouraged based on inaction or improper action of the BOD in the past, that they have lost all faith.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 8, 2012, 8:47 AM
Post #20 of 142 (3073 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It seems that most are so discouraged based on inaction or improper action of the BOD in the past, that they have lost all faith

Inaction of the BOD in the past? How about inaction of all the BODs in the past. It's not like this is limited to the current administration, it's been going on for years, and let's remember that the bulk of the BOD are long-standing members, so the fact that this has spanned multiple admistrations is a mark against them on two fronts, 1) that new members of the BOD failed to take action, and 2) that old members have taken no action year after year.

Take a look at this thread I started in 2004, when this had been going on long enough for this to be an issue. When is this going to get some attention and resolution?

http://www.dropzone.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2012, 10:00 AM
Post #21 of 142 (3051 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>Inaction of the BOD in the past? How about inaction of all the BODs in the past.

About six years back a bunch of us went to the BOD and demanded a BSR that separated landing patterns. We went with incident data, a presentation and a lot of representation. At that meeting we agreed to a compromise where the separated landing areas was made part of the group member pledge.

The BOD does indeed take action at times. Not all the time, but they are trying to do the right thing. You can help by bringing what you want to them - gathering names on petitions, proposing training programs, putting together a presentation, gathering data from incident and fatality reports, even putting together your proposed program and trying it at your DZ. It's a lot of work, but that's what has to happen. "Just talk to the experts and make them do it" won't get much in the way of results.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 8, 2012, 10:21 AM
Post #22 of 142 (3039 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
You can help by bringing what you want to them - gathering names on petitions, proposing training programs, putting together a presentation, gathering data from incident and fatality reports, even putting together your proposed program and trying it at your DZ. It's a lot of work, but that's what has to happen. "Just talk to the experts and make them do it" won't get much in the way of results.

Granted, but nobody had to lobby the BOD to get them to spend their time going over (again) the manusha of the competition manual, and I doubt it took all that much personal effort to lighten the USPA wallet to the tune of $10k for the 'demo team', but I'm supposed to be OK with the idea that I should bust my ass just to get the BOD to take action on what is clearly one of the biggest problems in the sport?

Let's face it, short of the FAA taking over sport skydiving, open canopy incidents are the #1 problem facing skydiving today. Truth is, if there were less open canopy incidents, we would be that much further off the FAAs radar anyway, so really focusing on open canopy incidents takes care of two birds with one stone (I thought 'kill' was a poor word choice given the context).

It should be issue #1, without any extra effort on the part of the membership. Of the few things we do have hard numbers on, open canopy incidents are far and above the biggest slice of the pie-chart, and have been for as long as I can remember.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2012, 10:23 AM
Post #23 of 142 (3034 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>but I'm supposed to be OK with the idea that I should bust my ass just to get the
>BOD to take action on what is clearly one of the biggest problems in the sport?

You can bust your ass or not; up to you. If you bust your ass it is more likely to happen. Is that worth it to you? If so, then do the work. If not, that's fine too.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 8, 2012, 10:43 AM
Post #24 of 142 (3022 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
You can bust your ass or not; up to you. If you bust your ass it is more likely to happen. Is that worth it to you? If so, then do the work. If not, that's fine too.

Indded. Your point is as valid as mine. You're suggesting the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and I'm suggesting the being the largest slice of the pie chart should be enough of a 'squeak'.

FYI, I did my share of squeaking a few years back. I reached out the chair of the safety and training comittee, and expressed my concerns and offered to assist in any possible getting some sort of solution in place. I recieved what amounted to a 'form letter' in response, which concluded in a promise to get back with me in the near future. When that didn't happen, I initiated another contact, and was not replied in any way.

I squeaked. The issue itself has been squeaking year in and year out for over a decade. Other countries have taken action and put programs (now long-standing) in place with great success. The BOD has yet to act in any signifacnt manner.

It's not like they're made of gold besides this one issue, there's a host of areas where they have let down the membership, but this one, in my opinion, is the worst example.


Ron

Mar 8, 2012, 10:54 AM
Post #25 of 142 (3018 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
About six years back a bunch of us went to the BOD and demanded a BSR that separated landing patterns

And weren't you also a part of the W/L BSR???? Not much action on that.

We the jumpers need to realize that the BOD does not really care about the jumpers anymore. The USPA is an organization that, not by mandate but by history and by makeup, is for the DZO's and the manufacturer's.

The reason is simple, only the DZO's and manufacturer reps can afford the time off to be on the board for the most part.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2012, 11:36 AM
Post #26 of 142 (985 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>We the jumpers need to realize that the BOD does not really care about the
>jumpers anymore.

The BOD is made up of people. And I don't know all the people on the BOD but I do know a lot of them.

Larry Hill. He was one of the supporters of our BSR proposal and gave a pretty impassioned speech about how tired he was of losing friends of his, He got a little teary as he was talking about being a DZO at a place where his friends were getting killed.

Jan Meyer. She can be a pain in the butt but her heart is in the right place, and really does care about keeping jumpers safe.

Jay Stokes. Anyone who has met him knows how much he cares about jumpers.

BJ Worth. I've talked to him a few times about safety issues and he has been proactive in dealing with them.

I think saying "the BOD doesn't care because they don't do anything" is like saying "Nationals competitors don't give a shit about anything but competition because they aren't teaching canopy courses."


Ron

Mar 8, 2012, 11:44 AM
Post #27 of 142 (983 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I think saying "the BOD doesn't care because they don't do anything"

Too bad that is not what I said.

What I said is the BOD (note, not ALL the individual members, the collective board) cares more about representing the PIA and the DZO's than the individual jumpers.

But I would welcome you to point out where the BOD sided with the jumpers and not the PIA or DZO's.......

Quote:
I think saying "the BOD doesn't care because they don't do anything" is like saying "Nationals competitors don't give a shit about anything but competition because they aren't teaching canopy courses."

Nationals Competitors are not in position to pass rules to make canopy coaching mandatory.... So that is why they have not done it. The BOD IS and still has not done it.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2012, 12:54 PM
Post #28 of 142 (967 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>What I said is the BOD (note, not ALL the individual members, the collective board)
>cares more about representing the PIA and the DZO's than the individual jumpers.

Yes, I have heard that a lot from the Internet as well. When I have dealt with them directly I have found them to be a lot more interested in representing jumpers than PIA.

They also represent DZ's, which I think makes sense - since most DZO's are jumpers and we would not have skydiving without DZO's.

>Nationals Competitors are not in position to pass rules to make canopy coaching
>mandatory...

No, but they are in a position to actually coach canopy flying. Passing rules does nothing without the education that goes along with it.

What we lack now is education, not rules. Rules _might_ help people get that education, but it is not at all a guarantee.


Ron

Mar 8, 2012, 12:57 PM
Post #29 of 142 (964 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Yes, I have heard that a lot from the Internet as well. When I have dealt with them directly I have found them to be a lot more interested in representing jumpers than PIA.

The BOD's actions do not represent that. Like I said before show me some examples of the BOD representing jumpers and not the DZO's or PIA.


shattenjager  (C 41561)

Mar 8, 2012, 1:26 PM
Post #30 of 142 (953 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sooperswooper] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Then, I agree, because at this point, they should make MANDATORY for all B, C and D already licensed skydivers to demonstrate their canopy piloting proficiency as well at their license renewal.
Number of jumps doesn't mean that someone knows how to fly a canopy at its full.
How many 'x000' jumps skydivers do only RW and then spiral down opening at 2000 ft every time?
I did at least 30 H&P pulling at 5500 ft and worked on all the drills suggested from Brian Germain articles, I took a canopy piloting course and I will take a speedflying training also, I love canopy piloting, for me is the most difficult, challenging and rewarding part of the skydive, in aviation the best pilot is the one who lands the plane perfectly! I know jumpers with more than 1000 jumps that don't even know what happen to the canopy with different inputs, while, me as a noob I do.
I jump mostly in Perris and Elsinore and I see how many oldtimers consider the 3 legs landing pattern 'optional', more than one time I asked them why they don't land properly, they just say, 'Oh sorry, you are right'.
I don't like the fact that since we are noobs, we have to pay for others mistakes. Some skydivers have skygod attitude no matter how many jumps, 20 or 10000, especially here in this forum, people judge other people without even knowing them, just based of jump numbers.
Canopy piloting should be THE priority in AFF, not freefall, nobody explained to me WHY I had to use rears or front risers inputs, what the canopy does in flight, etc, they just told me to do it. I didn't even know that you can pilot with harness inputs, now I do it all the time, I fly a Spectre 190 loaded at 0.98-1.0 and I will keep flying it until I won't be able squeeze anything else from that canopy, no matter if it will takes 20 jumps or 200.
I don't care to run the downsize race, it really doesn't matter, I like to feel in control of my canopy, not being in control.
Attitude and mentality matters, jumps number comes second.
I love the sport but make mandatory certain things would ruin it, again, I will not pay for others mistakes, I will for mine.


(This post was edited by shattenjager on Mar 8, 2012, 1:36 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2012, 1:36 PM
Post #31 of 142 (944 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>Like I said before show me some examples of the BOD representing jumpers and
>not the DZO's or PIA.

Landing area separation. Annoying for DZO's, may save some jumpers.

The ISP. Annoying for schools, good for jumpers.

Killing the Indiana skydiving bill. Good for BOTH jumpers and DZ's.

180 day repack cycle. Helped jumpers and DZ's. Opposed by some PIA members.

Killing the FAA TAWS requirement. Helps skydivers and DZ's. Didn't help PIA.


Ron

Mar 8, 2012, 2:15 PM
Post #32 of 142 (924 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The ISP. Annoying for schools, good for jumpers.

Most schools (Read: DZO's) liked it.

Quote:
Killing the Indiana skydiving bill. Good for BOTH jumpers and DZ's.

Yep, good for DZO's... That was kinda my point. The fact that jumpers also benefited was nice but the major restriction would have been on DZO's.

Quote:
Killing the FAA TAWS requirement. Helps skydivers and DZ's.

Oh lord, that was for the DZO's and you know it. The fact that jumpers benefited was a nice addition but the restriction was going to hurt DZO's.

I'll give you half credit for the 180 repack cycle... But last I checked the majority of the PIA wanted it. Again, the PIA supported it.

Nice try. But I think you really just proved my point. "Show me some examples of the BOD representing jumpers and not the DZO's or PIA". Your examples have benefited DZO's or the PIA and to some extent jumpers, but not the jumpers over the DZO's or PIA.


(This post was edited by Ron on Mar 8, 2012, 2:17 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2012, 2:19 PM
Post #33 of 142 (922 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>Your examples have benefited DZO's or the PIA and to some extent jumpers, but
>not the jumpers over the DZO's or PIA.

The landing area group pledge certainly did benefit jumpers over DZO's.

However, in most cases, things that benefit jumpers benefit DZO's as well - and vice versa. Heck, a canopy education requirement that reduced fatalities would benefit both.


Ron

Mar 8, 2012, 2:46 PM
Post #34 of 142 (913 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The landing area group pledge certainly did benefit jumpers over DZO's.

That's one..... Congrats! But the majority are for the DZO's and PIA. If the jumpers get a benefit that is not the same as looking out for the jumpers.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2012, 3:06 PM
Post #35 of 142 (905 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>But the majority are for the DZO's and PIA. If the jumpers get a benefit that is not
>the same as looking out for the jumpers.

That's like saying that the NTSB helps make cars safer but isn't looking out for drivers.

Helping DZO's helps skydivers, and vice versa. The DZO's I know - Melanie, Hammo, Kirk, Buzz - ARE skydivers, and are also generally the people willing to get most involved in USPA. They as a rule want to reduce fatalities while not being nazis, and thus are generally aligned with what skydivers want.

It almost sounds like you'd want to scuttle any effort by USPA to reduce canopy deaths if it helped out DZ's as well, which I'm sure isn't the case. 90% of the time their interests are the same - being able to jump safely at some reasonable price.

Part of this is instituting safety rules intended to reduce injuries and fatalities. This is another common goal. It helps jumpers by keeping them alive and uninjured, and it helps DZ's by reducing lawsuits and negative publicity. A win-win scenario.


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Mar 8, 2012, 4:04 PM
Post #36 of 142 (888 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

So how exactly would a wingload BSR work for current jumpers? If I am jumping a canopy that would be restricted to me under this new proposed BSR, would I be grandfathered in?
Also, if that is the case, would you expect a rash of lower number jumpers scrambling to get the smallest canopy they think they might want to jump to try and be grandfathered in?
Also, would you be grandfathered in on the smallest canopy you own, or the smallest canopy you have successfully jumped?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2012, 4:35 PM
Post #37 of 142 (875 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Here's the letter we wrote to USPA about ten years ago:
==================================================
Over the past few years, we have watched as more and more skydivers injure and kill themselves under high performance canopies. In 99% of the cases, this happens to a jumper who does not have the education and experience to fly his canopy safely. In the majority of cases, a larger canopy would have prevented the fatality or mitigated the injury. We, the undersigned, call on USPA to increase their role in canopy training to help prevent these sorts of fatalities in the future.

It is our position that only education can prevent accidents like these. Modern, heavily loaded high performance canopies can be flown safely only after sufficient education and/or experience has been obtained by the jumper. We ask USPA to do the following:

-Develop canopy skills requirements for the B, C, and D licenses that build upon the initial "A" license canopy skills. They should include canopy control classroom training, practical exercises, and a written and practical test. Once these are in place, add canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the A through D license, with a grandfather clause so this does not affect people currently jumping high wing loadings. As with other skills, restricted licenses would be available for jumpers who choose not to demonstrate HP canopy skills.

-To prevent exceptional jumpers from being held back unnecessarily, allow any instructor, I/E or S+TA to waiver these requirements based on a demonstration of canopy skills.

-Develop a Canopy Instructor (CI) rating which focuses on skills required to safely land heavily loaded high performance canopies. Currently, many jumpers receive no practical HP canopy training at all; it is possible to progress through the ISP jumping only a 288 square foot canopy. With the rapid development of very high performance canopies, canopy skills are as critical for skydiver survival (if not more critical) than freefall skills. The intent of the CI would be to teach the canopy skills required for the new licenses, and to waiver those who demonstrate the skill required to progress to small canopies more quickly than their jump numbers would ordinarily allow.

We recognize that any additional restrictions placed on skydivers should be considered very carefully; skydiving has never been a sport of heavy regulation, and regulations alone will not keep anyone safe. However, new regulations are falling into place already. Individual DZ's are implementing canopy loading restrictions with no education, no commonality and no way to "waiver out" of the requirements. We feel that USPA could implement a canopy training program that will educate more jumpers, be less restrictive and keep even pilots of very high performance canopies alive and jumping.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 8, 2012, 5:04 PM
Post #38 of 142 (868 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Congratulations, Bill. You and your group went the extra mile. You 'busted your ass' to get something done. And that's a good thing and we, as jumpers, appreciate it, believe me.

Now having said that, why is that you HAD to "go the extra mile and bust your ass to get it done when it should have been taken up and run through by the BOD themselves?

It's like they were ignoring the squeaking until somebody tapped them on the shoulder and sucker punched them to get some action. I don't understand why other than what Ron is saying.

The squeaky wheel...again, thanks for squeaking and getting something done out of the BOD.

Fortunately, we at least have someone like Rich who is at least listening and trying. Too bad the entire BOD can't do that without having to be figuratively sucker punched.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 8, 2012, 7:12 PM
Post #39 of 142 (848 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Here's the letter we wrote to USPA about ten years ago:

Thanks for bringing this back, let's look at it-
Quote:
We ask USPA to do the following:

-Develop canopy skills requirements for the B, C, and D licenses that build upon the initial "A" license canopy skills

Didn't happen

Quote:
-To prevent exceptional jumpers from being held back unnecessarily, allow any instructor, I/E or S+TA to waiver these requirements based on a demonstration of canopy skills.

Didn't happen, but without the first things, it's kind of irrelevant

Quote:
-Develop a Canopy Instructor (CI) rating which focuses on skills required to safely land heavily loaded high performance canopies.

Does not exist

Quote:
We feel that USPA could implement a canopy training program that will educate more jumpers, be less restrictive and keep even pilots of very high performance canopies alive and jumping.

Wonderful sentiment, too bad it seems they didn't share it.

Remember when I said that I personally contacted the chair of the safety and training comittee? I made many of the same points, along with being open to other ideas/avenues, and offered to help in any way possible. That was probably about 8 years ago.

So your letter was 10 years ago, and my contact was 8 years ago, and none of the ideas put forth have become a reality. That's 8 and 10 years Bill. Not 3 months until the next meeting, not a year until after the next election, it's something in the neighborhood of a decade.

An entire war was begun, fought and ended in that time Bill. The US went to war, did it's business, and the troops are on their way home in less time. Not in less time than it took the BOD to act, less time then has passed since you and I, long time dues-paying members, spoke for common sense and the good of the sport, and got nowhere.

I applaud your efforts to side with the BOD to some extent, and the truth is I don't believe that their an 'axis of evil', but how do you convene and reconvene, year in and year out for a decade without making any progress in this area? Again, as one of the few areas we have hard numbers to look to, I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say 'no' progress.

There's no WL BSR or chart to follow. There is no training requirement beyond jump 25 of any kind. There is no 'official' canopy control course designed, built and administered by the USPA. There is no USPA rating or training provided to instructors in the area of canopy control.

Nothing, Bill. Not a thing, and I don't feel the least but bad about pointing it out. They should be ashamed to spend our money to conduct dozens of BOD meetings over the last decade, and not touch this issue in any meaningful way.

I'll admit that I don't have the time to donate toward being on the BOD, but the simple fact is that the members of the BOD volunteered for that position, all of them knowing full well what was expected of them. They made the choice to take on the responsibility of 'manning the ship' and I expect them to fullfill it. Thus far, it seems to me they have failed.


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Mar 8, 2012, 7:19 PM
Post #40 of 142 (845 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Okay, so I and others would be grandfathered in - but would it be only for the current wingloading? Would it be only for a canopy that I currently own, or say I had been jumping a friends Stiletto loaded at 1.8 - would I be able to continue to jump that? This is all figurative of course, I am just trying to see how exactly the grandfather clause would work in this case.
And, do you think we would see a spike in people buying/borrowing small canopies to insure they would be able to jump a higher wingload than the BSR would allow before it went into effect? Did anything like that happen in the Netherlands when they instituted their canopy rules?

Edit to add the question, in regards to the B, C, and D licenses and proposed canopy skills requirements, would those have to include high performance flights/landings? For example, if I wanted to get my D, and I had 500+ jumps but cared nothing for swooping, but I wanted to fly a Cobalt loaded at 1.8 - what kind of proficiency would I have to show to get a D license? I understand that any landing under a high performance canopy is technically a high performance landing, just curious as to how it would break down in the skills between those who want to fly a high performance wing vs those who want to swoop...


(This post was edited by crotalus01 on Mar 8, 2012, 7:26 PM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 8, 2012, 7:30 PM
Post #41 of 142 (841 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Okay, so I and others would be grandfathered in - but would it be only for the current wingloading? Would it be only for a canopy that I currently own, or say I had been jumping a friends Stiletto loaded at 1.8 - would I be able to continue to jump that? This is all figurative of course, I am just trying to see how exactly the grandfather clause would work in this case.
And, do you think we would see a spike in people buying/borrowing small canopies to insure they would be able to jump a higher wingload than the BSR would allow before it went into effect? Did anything like that happen in the Netherlands when they instituted their canopy rules?

Here's the thing about any of the proposals that have been floating around, they're all progressive in that the more jumps you make, the less restrictions you'll have.

So if we take every jumper who is beyond the chart on the day it was implemented, and just wrote them off, there would still be a significant number of existing jumpers who would be in line with the new regs, or would fall in line (no pun intended) as their jump numbers came up.

Beyond that, in 3 or 4 years, between all the jumpers who bring their jump numbers up, all the jumpers who quit, and all the jumpers who take up the sport during that time, the majority of effected jumpers would be 'in line' with the program.

It's not a perfect solution, and there will be some 'teething problems' on the outset, but if you look just down the road slightly, you can see where it would just become common place, and generally accepted.

I'll make the old comparison to pull altitudes. It used to be 'anything goes' (like canopy selection is now), and then they made a BSR with some hard numbers. Sure there were some unhappy jumpers, and some that thumbed their nose at the BSR and still pulled low, but 99.99% of them either eventaully just gave in or gave up jumping. Everyone esle just started pulling higher, and the vast majority of jumpers today have never known skydiving without a pull altitude BSR, and it's rarely questioned or intentionally broken.

How is canopy selection any different?


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Mar 8, 2012, 7:46 PM
Post #42 of 142 (834 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks Dave. I am not totally against a w/l BSR, but I am not totally for one either - thats why I am asking questions to better understand the impact of one should it pass.
Also, would it be strictly a w/l BSR or would it also include minimum jump numbers for semi-elliptical, fully elliptical and x-braced canopies?


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 8, 2012, 8:01 PM
Post #43 of 142 (826 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Ideally, it would be more of a 'program', to include Wl, canopy type by jump number, and have canopy control classes required in order to earn a higher license, like an intermediate class required to get a 'B', an advanced class required for a 'C', and an expert class for the 'D'.

The idea is to both inform and guide jumpers on their path to becoming good canopy pilots who know and understand the elements of good airmanship, and how to effectively work with the range of environmental factors out there.

The other thing it does is bestow a level of importance on the whole thing that's not currently present. Yes, some jumpers give canopy piloting it's due respect, but it's easy for a jumper to say they have no interest in swooping, and just want to do RW, and they don't need to really pay canopy control much attention.

When you have an ongoing and required program surroudning it, it gives it the importance in the community that it's deserves.

No offence, but for all I care we could give every jumper who is beyond the 'program' at the time it's implemented a 'free pass', to just go about their merry way forever. No restrictions, no classes required ever, you can jump whatever you want and get any license without taking a canopy control class. It's a drop in the bucket, and not even worth worrying about. In time, you'll all 'grow up' and either quit the sport or just make enough jumps that you'll be beyond the 'program' anyway.

If the only hurdle is some unhappy jumpers currently in the 200 to 500 jump range, give them whatever they want to make them happy, and let's focus on everyone esle.

Of course, this is all just 'pie in the sky' talk, as nothing of the sort will ever actaully come to being.


Ron

Mar 9, 2012, 4:55 AM
Post #44 of 142 (793 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

If the DZO's and PIA dont want something the BOD will not do it. And that is backed up by history.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Mar 9, 2012, 5:15 AM
Post #45 of 142 (788 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

What about the new B license proficiency card. That was implemented soley based on the need to continue canopy education past the A license. It was also implemented in an effort to require a canopy course prior to B license application. So every new jumper from this point forth, in theory should have taken a basic course that uses the syllabus in the SIM. Section 6-10 and 6-11. It is a first step to get all of the canopy courses teaching similar stuff or at least they all should encorporate what is written in the syllabus. The card is basic, I agree but it is a great starting point to maybe adding an advanced one for C or D license or maybe even a high performance proficiency card.

This whole initiative came out of Safety and Training and in no way had PIA or any one manufacturer in mind. Although, we did reach out to many different danopy coaches and some did infact have connections through sponsorship but that would be one hell of a reach.

Or

How about the new wingsuit instructor rating being looked at. Although if that is implemented at anytime I guess you could say it is for the DZO's because they will be less likely to have a tail strike.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 9, 2012, 5:26 AM
Post #46 of 142 (777 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The card is basic, I agree but it is a great starting point

Starting point? Did you see Bill's letter from a decade ago and my story from 8 years ago?

The BOD has a long way to go, and a lot of actual progress to be made before I'm willing to change my tune. Starting points are all well and good, and would have been noteworthy 7, 6, or even 5 years ago. At this point I'll need more that 'getting started' before I'm willing to accept that the BOD is meeting it's responsibilities and honoring the commitment they made to the membership when they took the job.

What we need (and have needed for many, many years) is for the USPA to set the standard and make canopy selection and education an important part of the skydiving culture. They have the power to do so, and this is what's required to change the tide and get things moving in the right direction.

I'll come back to the time issue, but let's say the BOD took action 10 years ago. Let's also say that it took three years to get all the ducks in a row, and implement required canopy control courses and some sort of WL regs for jumpers as they advance through the licenses.

What that would mean is that every jumper who earned a license in the last 7 years would have taken a canopy control course. Every jumper who has less than 7 years in the sport would only know skydiving with a WL reg in place, and required canopy control courses that coincide with a licesne. Think of the number of jumpers that would have been effected if the BOD had acted responsibly.

All that opportunity has been lost, and that loss isn't easliy forgetten.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Mar 9, 2012, 7:06 AM
Post #47 of 142 (762 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Dave,

I cant say I dont agree with what you are saying, in fact it is the reason I ran for the BOD in the first place amongst other issues.

Anyhow, The card was implemented on my personal second meeting. The first meeting was basically useless because we were sworn in and had to get to know the other members and be assinged committees. So, the first real meeting I personally was involved in yielded a new canopy requirement. Jay Stokes mentioned that he was impressed with how fast we got this through. Myself along with other members pushed as hard as possible. Merriah Eakins, Tony Thacker, and myself were first time directors. We each put 100% all of our effort into this.
I do understand that opinions of the BOD will not change immediately or may not change as long as some are still there from years past. I do promise you that we are trying our hardest but at some point I want to stop answering for BODs of past.
You can imagine how frustrating it is getting blasted online, in person, email, phone calls with complaints. I cant make any excuses or even throw daggers at those that may have been responsible for inaction and I wont. With that said, if the time and effort spent online bashing how bad it is or how bad it has been was spent on helping, I thinkwe can make progress. Call me naive but I do want to change the instructor curriculm do include much more canopy education and evaluation. The problem is the elections are now around the corner and the BOD may change dramatically. That is why the 3 year term will help out a bit, giving BOD members time to start and FINISH projects. I will run again for National Director but nothing is guaranteed. I will promise you that if I continue that canopy continueing education, advanced canopy education, standardized canopy trianing, will continue to be my main focus.
Currently, we are working on the wingsuit instructor proposal and gathering as much intel as possible to see if this is the direction we need to go with WS's. If so then like you said in ten years we can say we were ahead of the curve and all of the canopy critisisms will not apply to the current BOD.

Just throwing some thoughts out.
Rich


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 9, 2012, 8:47 AM
Post #48 of 142 (740 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>If the DZO's and PIA dont want something the BOD will not do it.

DZO's didn't want separated landing areas. The BOD did it.

I really don't think there's any conspiracy to support PIA and DZO's at the expense of skydivers. I know most of the people on the board and they're just not like that. The biggest problem, I think, is one that plagues many organizations - the whole process has gotten so cumbersome that it takes forever to get anything done unless you push really hard.


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Mar 9, 2012, 12:09 PM
Post #49 of 142 (703 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks Dave.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 9, 2012, 12:48 PM
Post #50 of 142 (697 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>Okay, so I and others would be grandfathered in - but would it be only for the
>current wingloading?

That's the intent, yes.

>And, do you think we would see a spike in people buying/borrowing small canopies
>to insure they would be able to jump a higher wingload than the BSR would allow
>before it went into effect?

I doubt it. We haven't seen a spike in people getting B licenses so they wouldn't have to fill out the new canopy control card.

>Did anything like that happen in the Netherlands when they instituted their canopy rules?

Good question. Anyone from the Netherlands want to comment?

>in regards to the B, C, and D licenses and proposed canopy skills requirements,
>would those have to include high performance flights/landings?

To some degree, yes, because you'd want them to demonstrate the ability to control their canopy close to the ground. The intent of this is not to require people to do high performance landings (or to train them to be swoopers) so that would be minimal. The "high performance landing" demonstration might just be a front riser approach for example, or a front riser 90 to landing.

> For example, if I wanted to get my D, and I had 500+ jumps but cared nothing for
>swooping, but I wanted to fly a Cobalt loaded at 1.8 - what kind of proficiency would
>I have to show to get a D license?

I'd go with:

flat turn 90 degrees at X feet (50? 100? something low)
flare turn at least 45 degrees
land crosswind and in no wind
land reliably within a 10 meter circle (already in license requirements, just have to tighten this one)
initiate a high performance landing with either double front risers or front riser turn to landing
land on slight uphills and downhills (maybe - not sure about this one)
land with rear risers


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 9, 2012, 1:21 PM
Post #51 of 142 (975 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If the DZO's and PIA dont want something the BOD will not do it. And that is backed up by history.

Making a rule that DZOs won't enforce is a complete waste of time and just causes irritation to everyone. The DZOs have to be on board.

I am quite confident that all of the DZOs where I jump fairy regularly (Chicago, Deland, Perris, Elsinore, ZHills, Spaceland) have the interests of their jumpers squarely in mind.


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 9, 2012, 1:31 PM
Post #52 of 142 (969 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

 
what happened over here, AFAIK, wasn't dramatic.

We had a max WL of 1.2 in place for up to B, other than that there were no set rules, it was instructor's discretion.

When the rules were implemented, it was sort of sudden, so not everyone knew about it beforehand.
For those that did, there probaby were a few that got smaller canopies real quick. They still had to be sensible enough to be grandfathered in like the rest, and Im sure some were denied permission to jump that brand new canopy.

The grandfatherin-in meant that you could keep the canopy you were jumping at the time, but anytime you wished to change canopy categories you had to meet the requirements of that category.

I always thought that wording should have been "change to a HIGHER canopy category" but it wasn't.

Anyway, instructor discretion was/is still in play, and I was not permitted to jump a stiletto 135 when it was in the same category as my then current spectre and safire 135.

All in all, there was some grumbling about the rules from <1000 jump jumpers, but by now there's uch much less,


dragon2  (D 101989)

Mar 9, 2012, 1:37 PM
Post #53 of 142 (967 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

There's 2 kinds of jumper who grumble these days: the Mad Skillz jumpers and the occasional featherweight.

For the featherweight there is the option of asking the KNVvL for permission to jump a smaller canopy, which is occasionaly granted.


Ron

Mar 9, 2012, 5:34 PM
Post #54 of 142 (933 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I really don't think there's any conspiracy to support PIA and DZO's at the expense of skydivers

Funny, I never said at the expense of... I said the BOD favors and follows PIA and DZO's. That is not what you are claiming I am saying.

But hey, others seem to understand what I am saying even if you don't and they seem to be agreeing.


Ron

Mar 9, 2012, 5:40 PM
Post #55 of 142 (930 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
What about the new B license proficiency card

A half measure and 10 years behind. And it does nothing to prevent a guy passing the class on a 1:1 loaded navigator and then jumping on a 2:1 Velo.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 9, 2012, 7:05 PM
Post #56 of 142 (916 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sooperswooper] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Thumbs up to USPA for taking action on this problem. I'm glad we are moving in the right direction.

Once I did a tandem all bets were off. My jump numbers climbed very fast. I received my A and I was looking for direction. Back then if you wanted to continue to learn you had look for it and that was not that long ago.
Having this card is a plus. Its not a end all. I don't see the problem.

As far as a wing loading card. I look at it this way.We are all grown ups here I hope. If someone told me your not good enough to jump this or that Id would be the first one to go and prove them wrong. So I really dont think that card would be such a good Direction. My first TI told me this. We are in a extreme sport with extreme personalities. All different walks of life. People learn faster. Have more abilities. Its up to that person to know their limits. Yes giving direction is good but we are not kids here.

Last but not least separate landing areas. Works great if people know how to fly their canopy's. Just like one landing area works great the same way. Teach people to fly their canopy's and there will be less collisions. I know of a DZ that has separate landing area's and it has not helped. I know another DZ with one landing and does not have a problem.

I think education is the best direction. Just don't see how it could hurt. Most canopy courses have been out there for years. My AFFI's told me to go take one of them. I did just that. I have taken three canopy courses. Everyone used advanced sec. of the sims. So now USPA is just making them a requirement.

What is the problem?


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 9, 2012, 7:09 PM)


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Mar 9, 2012, 10:21 PM
Post #57 of 142 (895 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Thats all pretty basic lifesaving stuff with the exception of the double fronts....


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 9, 2012, 11:27 PM
Post #58 of 142 (889 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>If someone told me your not good enough to jump this or that Id would be the first
>one to go and prove them wrong.

And that's a good way to approach it, I think,

"You can't jump this canopy kid, you're not good enough."
"Yes I am!"
"OK then. Prove it."


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 10, 2012, 5:32 AM
Post #59 of 142 (875 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If someone told me your not good enough to jump this or that Id would be the first one to go and prove them wrong. So I really dont think that card would be such a good Direction.

If you mean you would prove it based on following an established training protocol, and developing the skills over time to prove them wrong, then great.

If you mean you would hook that canopy up for your next jump, and show them how wrong they are, then that's not so great.

Again, you're looking at these ideas in the short term. You're thinking about you when you started jumping, or someone who's still new to the sport today. Forget about those guys because they all have a preconcieved notion of what slydving, and more importantly canopy education and selection is all about, that being that it's 'anything goes', and that's not something they want to give up.

The lure of HP canopies, swooping, and just going faster in general is a strong one. If it wasn't, none of this talk would be neccesary. Notice that there's no talk about regulating people climbing out of their harness and hanging from their legstraps under canopy. Surely there's a great deal of training and preparation needed for a stunt like that, but so few people are interested in such a stunt that there's no need to make it an issue for the general public. Wanting to jump smaller and faster canopies is an issue, and needs some consideration.

Back to the idea of WL regulation, while there might be some backlash at first, within time it will just become a part of the status quo. We tell jumpers all the time that they can't pull lower then 2k, how many of them run right out and suck it down to 1k to prove us wrong?

Not many now, but when the pull altitude BSR firast went into effect, I'm sure there was a group of jumpers who did just that. These days, it's generally accepted that 2k is as low as you want to be in freefall, and people just go along with that. I know I did when I started jumping, I never questioned the idea that I should be opening a parachute above 2k. I found out by accident that you can get away with it sometimes, but to this day I still accept that the freefall should be ending by 2k.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 10, 2012, 9:49 AM
Post #60 of 142 (851 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

ok ill bite Dave. Under loading a canopy is just as dangerous. This is one of the reasons we limit the winds that students can jump in.

So what wing loading do you feel is safe for everyone?

To put a restriction on this does not work for me. Again we are all adults here. So I wouldnt be ok driving a bus around in the sky. Some like driving a sports car. If you teach them to drive they can then make the discussion themselves on what to drive. If I want to learn to drive a bus. I take a commercial driving course. If I want to learn how to drive a race car I go to a racing school to learn. So what is the problem here. teach them how to drive and these numbers we see will go down.

People are going to die plain and simple. They will be people dieing every year in our sport for this reason or that reason. The numbers are down from past years http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/ Putting restriction on what people can jump will hold people and our sport back. What do I know tho. I am still very new to this sport. I just dont think restriction is the way to go here. Eduction is.

Edited to add: I would be ok if they put a check list like this before moving down in canopy size http://www.dropzone.com/...etail_page.cgi?ID=47 Its what I did before moving down and seem to work for me.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 10, 2012, 9:57 AM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 10, 2012, 10:10 AM
Post #61 of 142 (845 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Under loading a canopy is just as dangerous

As overloading? Not even close, but when taken to extremes, underloading can present some problems.

Quote:
So what wing loading do you feel is safe for everyone?

In case you were not aware, all of the ideas so far have included a chart that indicates the maximum allowable WL based on jump numbers.

The rough idea is something like 0-100 jumps has a max allowable WL of 1.0. Jumpers with 100-200 jumps could bump up to 1.1, and so on. Factors like high altitude DZs, or exceptionally small jumpers are accounted for, and the numbers get shifted around a bit for them.

There is no 'universal' WL for everyone. Given how fast and how HP canopies have become, it's really become a 700, 800, or even 1000 jump progression before a jumper is anywhere close to being ready to jump 'anything' they want. So up until that point, there some WL that are close to being 'universal' in that they limit the performance of the canopy to match the experience of the jumper.

Eventaully, if you keep jumping you'll get past the requirements of the Wl chart and be able to do anything you want. You reach a point where you have proven you have the skill and judgement to jump 'anything' out there, and when you reach that point, you should be able to. Before that point, however, you lack the experience to prove you can handle yourself, and the judgment that comes from that experience, and you really shouldn't be able to just jump anything you want.

Every other facet of avialtion has some sort of stepped licensing program where the level of license you have dictates the type of equipment you can fly. Hell, even skydiving in countries outside the US have Wl restrictions in place, why not us? What makes skydiving in the US so special that it doesn't need the same type of programs in place?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 10, 2012, 11:05 AM
Post #62 of 142 (837 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>ok ill bite Dave. Under loading a canopy is just as dangerous.

No, it's not. That's like saying that opening 3000 feet too high is just as dangerous as opening 3000 feet too low.

>If I want to learn how to drive a race car I go to a racing school to learn. So what is
>the problem here. teach them how to drive and these numbers we see will go down.

Agreed!

Now let's say you do that. You put the time in to learn to drive that car at 130mph around a banked track. You put in the money and time on the course. You get pretty good but you realize it's also dangerous; you have friends who have died doing it, you've had a close call yourself etc.

Then you see a new guy come along and buy that race car - and he drives it without training on the street at 130mph. You tell him "dude, you're not ready for that car; you have got to get some training."

He tells you "what the hell do you know? You're some fossil who grew up on boring street legal cars. You don't know what it's like growing up in the modern age of fast cars. You probably can't appreciate my innate skills, because you obviously don't have them."

That's one of the situations we're facing now. What do you do? One answer is just "let him do it." The problem there is that he's not only likely to injure or kill himself, he may kill another friend of yours in the process.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 10, 2012, 12:09 PM
Post #63 of 142 (830 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Ok so a jumper weighting 100lbs would be under a sub 100 canopy at 100 jumps. Is that safe? I think not.You cant go off a chart with something like this. Where is the education in a chart? USPA already considers anything under a 150 a HP canopy. I can get hurt just as bad on a 129 CF as I can under my 90 velo. Ill take it a step further. I can still kill someone else under a 190 saber as well. If I dont know how to fly said canopy. It really dont matter what size is over my head. To get your A uspa has a standard. Its not the end. In my opinion its bear minimum. The way things were before, If you wanted further education you had to seek it out. Now you must get it if you want to progress. I know people that got their A and never went further. Have 1000s of jumps and still have their A. I just think if you teach them how to fly a canopy. Have them understand how it works. It will much better in the long run. Putting restriction on anything. limiting them to what they can do and when they can do it is the wrong approach. Teaching them to understand it is the better choice. We can go round robin on this matter all day. With a chart there will be exceptions. You said it yourself. So who gets to decide on them? So on and so on. If everyone has to go threw a course from this point forward you will see the benefits.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 10, 2012, 12:14 PM
Post #64 of 142 (828 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Bill Im with you 100% This is why I think its great USPA put this canopy card in for the B.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 10, 2012, 2:49 PM
Post #65 of 142 (809 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Ok so a jumper weighting 100lbs would be under a sub 100 canopy at 100 jumps. Is that safe? I think not

Nobody else thinks that either. That's why I mentioned lighter people and DZ with higher elevations, the charts have exceptions for them.

Lighter folks generally lose .2 lbs/sq ft on the WL, so instead of 1.0, they would be at .08. A 100lb jumper, with an exit weight of 125/130, would be jumping something like a 150.

Higher elevation DZs also make adjustments, where they subract .01 off the WL for every 2k above sea level (or something like that).

These charts are well thought out, and contain adjustments where they are needed, and prohibit eliptical canopies at any WL below 500 jumps.

Quote:
I just think if you teach them how to fly a canopy. Have them understand how it works. It will much better in the long run

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is the first time you're hearing about any of these proposals, but continuing education has always been a part of the idea.

I've always liked the idea that you require a canopy control course in order to earn a licesne. There's one in place for the A for the most part (of course, I feel like it needs more work), and now I guess there's one for the B as well. I feel that the material and performance requirements should ratchet up with the higher licesnes, and there should be an advanced course and an expert course to go along with the C and D licenses, respectively.

If a jumper chooses not to earn additional licenses, they are free to jump at the highest WL allowed for the license they do have. For example, if you have a B license and choose not to advance to a C license at 200 jumps, you can jump a canopy rated for your weight at 200 jumps 1.2 WL. If you stop at a C, and do not get your D when you have 500 jumps, you're capped at 1.5 until you take the expert course and earn a D license.

Quote:
With a chart there will be exceptions. You said it yourself. So who gets to decide on them?

Again, the exceptions are based solely on situation, not jumper performance or desire. If you happen to be a leightweight person, then the 'standard' chart does not apply to you as you're not a 'standard' person. if you jump at a high elevation DZ, that needs to be taken into account.

At the end of the day, all of the exceptions involve lowering the WL of the effected jumpers anyway, so it's not like jumpers will be lobbying to be exceptions. If they are, then they are, it's just situational and up to the math.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 10, 2012, 4:06 PM
Post #66 of 142 (802 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>Ok so a jumper weighting 100lbs would be under a sub 100 canopy at
>100 jumps. Is that safe? I think not.You cant go off a chart with
>something like this.

I think you can, as long as you have a good chart. Using Germain's chart, for example, that 100 lb 100 jump person would be under a 135 - which seems pretty reasonable.

>Putting restriction on anything. limiting them to what they can do and
>when they can do it is the wrong approach. Teaching them to understand
>it is the better choice.

Agreed. But those limitations might just keep them alive until they do understand.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 10, 2012, 6:14 PM
Post #67 of 142 (784 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

2011 report
http://www.dropzone.com/..._America/index.shtml

5 out of the 11 canopy incidents were with jumpers over 2000 jumps about 45%

how is your chart helping them?

One was by a jump breaking more then one brs. and one was a student. That's all the low turns.

The canopy collisions I don't know what to say about. If people are aware of their surroundings this would not happen. People need to know who's on the plane and what they are doing. Give enough separation on exit, track the right direction. Check air space and after opening giving canopy separation . If you know a guy behind you is jumping a smaller canopy then why bother to spiral down. Thats up to the AFFI at the DZ's to teach their students this stuff. Do people fall threw the cracks. Yes and it is a good thing that USPA is stepping up.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 10, 2012, 6:18 PM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 10, 2012, 6:53 PM
Post #68 of 142 (772 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
5 out of the 11 canopy incidents were with jumpers over 2000 jumps about 45%

how is your chart helping them?

How long had they been in the sport? This idea was hatched 10 years ago, let's say the USPA took action, and those jumpers had all been through 4 canopy control courses and all followed a 'sensible' canopy progression. What you end up with is the best possible canopy pilots, and hopefully the least possible incidents.

Let's go back to the concept that only fatalites are reported. You have to kill yourself to have a record of it, and from where I'm sitting, high time jumpers are jumping the smallest, fastest canopies, and taking the most risks with them via swooping. They stand the highest chance for having a fatal incident based on their canopy choice and what they do wth it. I would suggest that lower time jumpers have a greater chance of a less severe incident, again, based on their equipment choices and what they do with it.

As much as I dislike fatalities, I don't find non-fatal incidents any more acceptable.

This is common sense stuff. How can you argue that continuing education and regulating canopy selection aren't both steps in a safer direction. You could offer your opinion that you don't think it's neccesary, or maybe you don't think it's doing enough, but there's no way to argue that it's a bad thing. Show me the planet where a more informed jumper is worse off? Is that the same planet where a lower WL isn't safer than a higher one? Where is this place?


(This post was edited by davelepka on Mar 10, 2012, 6:54 PM)


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Mar 11, 2012, 7:35 AM
Post #69 of 142 (732 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If a jumper chooses not to earn additional licenses, they are free to jump at the highest WL allowed for the license they do have. For example, if you have a B license and choose not to advance to a C license at 200 jumps, you can jump a canopy rated for your weight at 200 jumps 1.2 WL. If you stop at a C, and do not get your D when you have 500 jumps, you're capped at 1.5 until you take the expert course and earn a D license.

Issue with this is that it limits who can get a D license. Why is that important?

Instructional ratings - I choose not to swoop or fly a high wingloading, and I know many very good instructors who also choose not to swoop or fly a high wingloading. None of us would have been able to get an AFF rating if we were subject to the above rule. While having intellectual knowledge of high performance flight is important for an AFF instructor, actually having done swoop landings is not.

Record attempts - A D license is required to be on a world record attempt. Limiting D licenses to only those who have swooping training and experience would negatively affect many jumpers who have no desire to swoop but want to be on an RW world record.

If your point is that a D license holder should be a "master" or "expert", then it should also be required that jumpers do a specific number of (or get specific advanced training on) RW, freefly, wingsuit, CRW and camera jumps before getting that license. If it's required that an "expert" have training in one discipline, it should be required that they have training in ALL disciplines.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 11, 2012, 8:14 AM
Post #70 of 142 (728 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If your point is that a D license holder should be a "master" or "expert", then it should also be required that jumpers do a specific number of (or get specific advanced training on) RW, freefly, wingsuit, CRW and camera jumps before getting that license. If it's required that an "expert" have training in one discipline, it should be required that they have training in ALL disciplines.

First off, I disagree with the premise that the D license canopy control course should require induced speed landings of any kind. Adding speed absolutely adds to the risk, and there's no reason anyone should be forced to do that.

You can have an 'expert' canopy control course without requiring induced speed landings. Going faster is a choice, and if you never make it happen to yourself, it's not going to happen on it's own. True, you 'might' find youself landing at the bottom of a turn 'someday', but the chances are slim, and it's no reason to force people to add risk to their canopy control course.

You can have an 'expert' course that covers info and theory of jumping at higher WL, which would be becoming a reality for a jumper with 500+ jumps, and you could also have some tighter accuracy requirements. Any sort of induced speed landings, like double-fronts, could be optional during the D license course. It should certainly be a part of the class, but actaully demonstrating them should be optional.

In terms of the other things you mentioned, none of those are required to make a skydive, but flying your canopy is, which is why you can require an 'expert' canopy control course to become an 'expert' skydiver, but you don't need those other things. I have a feeling you were focused on the swooping aspect of it, and as indicated above, I agree that nobody should 'have to' swoop.

The truth is that the number of skills coverd by the time you are at the D license level would be lower, and the 'book learning' would be a bigger part of the class. The theory and aerodynamcis become more important as WL (and speed) goes up, so that would be more of the focus at that point. Once a jumper has reached 500 jumps (and taken 3 previous canopy control courses), you're running out of things to cover, but at the same time as this is the last 'required' canopy control course, you want to take advantage of that and maybe look forward another 500 jumps and prep them for what lies ahead.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 11, 2012, 8:21 AM
Post #71 of 142 (726 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
What makes skydiving in the US so special that it doesn't need the same type of programs in place?

'Merica is God's Own Country - didn't you get the memo?


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 11, 2012, 8:29 AM
Post #72 of 142 (720 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

 
The Devil is in the details.

A rule needs to be simple or it will not be enforceable.

So now we enshrine a WL chart into the rules.

Exceptions created for altitude.

Exceptions created for "featherweights"

Exceptions created for those of exceptional talent who can demonstrate proficiency.

Then there are those who want to set world records but don't want to swoop. Need to accommodate them.

Etc. Etc.

Pretty soon it will be like the tax code, and be unenforceable.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 11, 2012, 8:49 AM
Post #73 of 142 (714 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Exceptions created for those of exceptional talent who can demonstrate proficiency

I disagree with this. This is where we come back to the same thing now, which is 'someone' says that this guy 'should be OK' on a higher than average WL.

There's no reason not to hold everyone to the WL chart, if you have exceptional talent, then you have it on any canopy of any size. If you're jumping at a fast pace, you can work your way off the chart in 2 or 3 years. If you're not jumping that fast, you shouldn't be allowed outside of the chart anyway.

The other exceptions are not 'judgement calls', they're basic situational factors. Do you have an exit weight under 150 lbs? If yes, you need to factor that in, if no, you're on the 'standard' chart. Do you jump at a DZ above 2kft MSL? If yes, factor that in, if no, back to the standard numbers.

The thing is that just like everyone in oppsition wants to crow about, there is no 'magic' number. There is no magic WL where everything will be fine below it and you die if you go above it. The chart isn't there to keep people to the 'magic' number, it's designed to keep the average jumper 'close' to a reasonable WL.

Jumpers gain or lose weight. Jumpers wear weight belts. Jumpers jump at DZs with different elevations. Jumpers much heavier or lighter than average exist. All fo these things will reduce the precision of the chart, but it's not designed to be 'precise' and it's effectiveness does not depend on precision.

The idea is that it provides a reasonble progression for jumpers to follow as they learn, and it will serve that purpose for the majority of jumpers in the majority of situatuions.

On top of that, you add in the canopy control courses, so that when a jumper does pay a visit to Mile-Hi up in Co, they know and understand what to expect from their canopy.

Quote:
Then there are those who want to set world records but don't want to swoop. Need to accommodate them

I addressed that in my previous post. There's no reason to require people to induce speed on their landings. Make it available to them in the D license canopy control class if they want, but not required if they don't.

By the time you get to the D license level, more of the class would be theory and aerodynamics. Just like the A license class is for more techniques and practice, the B class would be less so, the C even less, and the D class would be the least amount of practice, and the most amount of theory. In the beginnig you teach them the 'how' and the 'when' because those are survival skills. In the higher classes, you teach more of the 'why' to prepare them for the what the future holds.

The ideas only become complicated when people whine about exceptions. Part of our problem is that everyone thinks they're an exception, but they're not. Even if they are, there's no reason they can't follow the chart like everyone esle. You want simple? There is it, follow the chart and take the classes. Simple.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 11, 2012, 10:41 AM
Post #74 of 142 (693 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Exceptions created for those of exceptional talent who can demonstrate proficiency

I disagree with this. This is where we come back to the same thing now, which is 'someone' says that this guy 'should be OK' on a higher than average WL.

.

You disagree with anyone who has ideas different from yours.

That is why the devil IS in the details.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 11, 2012, 10:45 AM
Post #75 of 142 (689 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
You disagree with anyone who has ideas different from yours.

Isn't that the basis of a disagrrement? You have one idea, I have another, the two of us disagree?

Am I supposed to disagree with someone who has the same ideas I do? How would that work?


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 11, 2012, 11:07 AM
Post #76 of 142 (1103 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

...disagree with someone who has the same ideas I do? How would that work?

Like any marraige. Blush


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 11, 2012, 3:33 PM
Post #77 of 142 (1082 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>Then there are those who want to set world records but don't want to swoop. Need to
>accommodate them.

Already done. No proposed rules require anyone to swoop.


Douggarr  (D 2791)

Mar 11, 2012, 4:08 PM
Post #78 of 142 (1075 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

I was just about to post a reply to this guy and say, "See what Winny has to say on this subject." If it weren't for you we wouldn't even have had baby steps.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 11, 2012, 10:13 PM
Post #79 of 142 (1043 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The Devil is in the details.

A rule needs to be simple or it will not be enforceable.

So now we enshrine a WL chart into the rules.

Exceptions created for altitude.

Exceptions created for "featherweights"

Exceptions created for those of exceptional talent who can demonstrate proficiency.

Then there are those who want to set world records but don't want to swoop. Need to accommodate them.

Etc. Etc.+

Pretty soon it will be like the tax code, and be unenforceable.

+1 it's what i was trying to say who gets to decide all these exceptions and why bother if there is exceptions. I'm all about teaching more canopy. I just think if I can educate a student then they will make choices that are smart. On the ground and in the air. With their wingloading and their surroundings. I don't have a problem at all with canopy drills for C+D as well. I do have proven with restriction in any form.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 11, 2012, 11:14 PM
Post #80 of 142 (1033 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>I'm all about teaching more canopy. I just think if I can educate a student then they
>will make choices that are smart. On the ground and in the air. With their
>wingloading and their surroundings. I don't have a problem at all with canopy drills
>for C+D as well. I do have proven with restriction in any form.

Education alone doesn't do it. We have that now and it often doesn't work.

Upjumper: "Dude you cut me off again and you never even saw me. You really need to take a canopy control course. I can recommend one."
New jumper: "No problem. I saw you. I got it covered; I didn't hit you, did I?"
Upjumper: "You don't have it covered; you're having problems with basic canopy control."
New jumper: "Get off my back, OK? My pal Joe is a great canopy pilot and he says I should downsize."
Upjumper: "Joe is even worse! He almost killed that woman last year when he . . . ."
New jumper: "What are you, a stalker? Take a hike!"

So the two options are:

1) Continue with what we have now. As others have pointed out, the FAA may not be OK with that.

2) Put in some kind of requirement to get decent education before jumping small canopies.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Mar 11, 2012, 11:42 PM
Post #81 of 142 (1045 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'm all about teaching more canopy. I just think if I can educate a student then they will make choices that are smart. On the ground and in the air. With their wingloading and their surroundings.

In the last 10 years there have been more books written, articles published, courses given and discussions on canopy safety than any other aspect of skydiving since the sport began. The opportunity for education is there. But the deaths under good canopies continue to rise each year. Only a fool can fail to see that without some form of regulation things are not going to change.

Sparky


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 12, 2012, 5:46 AM
Post #82 of 142 (1031 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In the last 10 years there have been more books written, articles published, courses given and discussions on canopy safety than any other aspect of skydiving since the sport began. The opportunity for education is there. But the deaths under good canopies continue to rise each year. Only a fool can fail to see that without some form of regulation things are not going to change.

Sparky

..and there you have it folks. End of story.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 12, 2012, 6:05 AM
Post #83 of 142 (1027 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
As far as a wing loading card. I look at it this way.We are all grown ups here I hope.
I look at is as no we are not all grown-ups here. Grown-ups would not be making the radical, thoughtless, Mad Skillz decisions some of us are making.

In reply to:
If someone told me your not good enough to jump this or that Id would be the first one to go and prove them wrong.
And you would be encouraged to do just that....after the education, training and practice.

We have educational opportunities. Many are not, and even go so far as to resist, taking advantage of those opportunities.

The B card is a start in the right direction, IMHO.

The problem with it as I see it is that it's simply a list of activities making no requirement for actual training on how to safely DO those activities.

Hopefully, the people authorized to sign off on the card have some integrity in making the requirement that the jumper actually receive the training before they agree to sign off. Given the general quality and integrity of those we have today, I see it as an open-ended invitation to bypass the training and simply sign off on the guys cards.

"I don't agree with the card idea so I'll just sign off for anyone that needs it."

Please, do NOT try to tell me it doesn't happen and please do NOT try to tell me it doesn't happen often.

In reply to:
My first TI told me this. We are in a extreme sport with extreme personalities. All different walks of life. People learn faster. Have more abilities. Its up to that person to know their limits. Yes giving direction is good but we are not kids here.
Right. On the face of it that's true. The problem is the first misconception of us all be adults making adult decisions. And that's NOT true at all.

In reply to:
Teach people to fly their canopy's and there will be less collisions.
The likelihood of there being fewer is greater with education, yes, I agree.

In reply to:
I think education is the best direction.
YEs, I agree with this. I also think that the education is not the panacea. The fact that education has always been available and yet we still have the problems we have bears that out, IMO.

It's time for regulation. The problems have brought it on themselves...and on all of us.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 12, 2012, 6:28 AM
Post #84 of 142 (1017 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

If you are saying we have it now with just canopy education on the a card you are nuts. I'm sorry but what we are teaching for canopy to get your A is a joke. It's bare minimum to survive. Putting in the requirements for your B. is a step in the right direction. I sorry I just think a chart telling someone they can jump this when you have that is just a step in the wrong direction. Again how is your chart helping the 45% of poeople that died last year.

I can say we both agree something needs to be done. Good job USPA for starting to do just that. Sorry for any typos I'm driving Unsure


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 12, 2012, 6:37 AM
Post #85 of 142 (1013 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

 Sorry for any typos I'm driving

In reply to:

ummmm....


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Mar 12, 2012, 7:21 AM
Post #86 of 142 (1001 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Douggarr] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey Doug,

What I have to say some may not want to hear. Does something need to be done? The statistics indicate yes. What we do is the question. No matter what USPA does or doesnt do most will be unhappy because that is where they enjoy living life. It doesnt matter if a step is taken in the right direction it will never be good enough for some because the BOD has failed them for the last twenty years. So, most sit back and bitch rather than let by gones be by gones and get involved. IMO getting involved doesnt mean typing on DZ.com and bitching and moaning how they would do everything differently. Getting involved means do like Bill did and compose a draft letter, compose a full idea, put down on paper the exact answer that you feel will work. Dot your I's and cross your T's. You know the questions that will be asked, just have answers for them. Then send it to me. I will give you my two cents and then I will request it get put on the agenda for consideration. Sorry fellas that is how it works.

It seems that the majority of membership is in favor of a BSR for wingloading. So come together and make it happen. I will help bring it forward. But quite frankly I have gotten bored and discouraged reading threads and threads of complaints. We spent more hours than you can imagine on the B proficiency card, with the hopes it would be accepted. Then once Vetted in the field then maybe we can come forward with a C or D license card or a higher wingloading card.
I was just like most and I felt I had all the answers, the problem is the system is designed to slow down those that want change yesterday. Maybe a good thing, it stops or at least slows down knee jerk reactions.

Anyhow, to sum it up, I am not in disagreement, I would just need to see it all laid out in front of me so I can take it in. Until someone takes the lead on it we can just keep on reading the nay sayers go on and on about how if they were king.

A good example whether you agree or not is the Wing Suit Instructor rating. It doesnt matter, did you hear me? it doesnt matter if you agree or not. What DSE did was he felt there was a need for a WS Instructor rating. He developed a syllabus, he developed full presentation, he had answers for all questions that were thrown at him, he had statistics, he had videos to back up his statistics. Once he compiled it all he came forward and had it placed on the agenda. At the BOD meeting he gave a very impressive presentation. That is how you get involved if you want something to change or you feel you have a better way to do something. I respect that far more than the guy who sends me a PM saying how bad we screwed the pooch on said topic. Now a sub-committee has been formed to gather as much input from the membership as possible and try to make a sound decision. Oh and let me add he brought this forward once before and it failed but he believes in it so strongly he gathered more information, statistics, and input from experienced ws'ers and brought it forward again. Kudoos to him. There is your example of how to make change happen. It might fail but you know what, you have to respect the dedication and commitment to a cause that is strongly believed in.

If you want a wing loading BSR, bring it forward. If you want a C or D license proficiency card bring it forward. If you want a high performance card bring it forward. I promise to help you out the best I can. My job is to represent the members and if that is what they want I will do just that.

Rich Winstock


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 12, 2012, 7:36 AM
Post #87 of 142 (995 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If you want a wing loading BSR, bring it forward

You don't think the fatality reports have brought this forward every year for the last decade (or more)?

I'll bite on your example with DSE. He knows about wingsuiting rating because he's involved with wingsuit training everyday. The rest of us don't much about the details because it's not a problem that's plagued the sport for over a decade and that has been put into print in the USPAs very oen magazine for each of those years. If the wingsuit community wants something done, they need to step up and make it happen because it might not be apparent to non-wingsuiters that there is a problem or a need for a rating.

Every jumper flies a canopy, and the fact that open canopy incidents are the #1 killer of skydivers has been common knowledge for many, many years. This is not the type of thing the membership should have to initiate, this is the type of thing that should be on the top of the list at every BOD meeting until the trend is reversed.

Trying to push the responsibility off on the membership is a cop-out. The whole purpose of the BOD is to handle the business of the USPA, and that business is regulating skydiving in the US (mostly so the FAA doesn't have to). The membership did it's job when it elected the BOD to do theirs.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Mar 12, 2012, 7:49 AM
Post #88 of 142 (984 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Sorry for any typos I'm driving Unsure

Hmm, I think you just made an example, and the point, that education alone is not working, and "Rules with Enforcement" is needed.

Matt


DiverMike  (C 40024)

Mar 12, 2012, 8:27 AM
Post #89 of 142 (975 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hmm, I think you just made an example, and the point, that education alone is not working, and "Rules with Enforcement" is needed.

Hell - rules and enforcement don't always help as in this example texting while driving is illegal and enforced.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 12, 2012, 9:24 AM
Post #90 of 142 (957 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Whatever lol
I was in a gas station filling my car with gass while typing this actually. Listen people wii always die in this sport. It's a fact of life. We are all adults and if we educate them they will be smarter adults. I really don't mind a chart if education goes with it. Geez one of the fatalities was a guy with 150 jumps with a camera on his head and jumping with a tandem. We have restrictions on that and a lot they did for that guy. I just think if we took the time to teach people why this or that is more of a risk they would be less likely to do it and if they do do it they would have a better understanding what they are gettting involved in. I have said enough on this madder. Time to go skydive.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 12, 2012, 9:35 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 12, 2012, 9:27 AM
Post #91 of 142 (955 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>If you are saying we have it now with just canopy education on the a card you are nuts.

We have canopy education on the card. We have a section in the SIM dealing with advanced canopy control. We have articles from companies like PD and Aerodyne. We have literally dozens of canopy coaches and canopy courses. We have schools dedicated to canopy coaching, and they use everything from video coaching to ground launching to teach canopy control.

So we have that all. We just need incentives to get people to use it. "You can't jump that canopy until you get some training" or "you can't get a C license until you get that training" are both excellent incentives, IMO.

>I'm sorry but what we are teaching for canopy to get your A is a joke. It's bare
>minimum to survive.

I agree; we should do more. But now you sound like you're moving to the side of restrictions. "No canopy education? You can't have an A, and you can't jump on your own. Guess you'll have to take that canopy control course."

>Again how is your chart helping the 45% of poeople that died last year.

Let's take the first 5:

3/3 - Two dead due to collision. One person turned into another person and killed them. If they had had to get training on setting up a HP turn before they got their current canopy both might have survived. If they didn't want to get the education the offending jumper would have been restricted to a larger canopy - and likely would not have collided,

3/6 - One died due to collision with tree. 600 jumps. If he had had to get canopy training (including extending glide and additional tree landing instruction) before he got his D license he might have survived.

3/31 - Two died due to canopy collision. The offender had thousands of jumps and per friends did this sort of stuff all the time. If he had had to get better HP canopy training before he got his D license this accident might not have occurred.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 12, 2012, 9:51 AM
Post #92 of 142 (948 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not saying we don't need to do more. Just the oppiste. What I was saying is the A card canopy skills is a joke. The student are learning so much that I think most don't retain most of what they learn. As it was before the only other thing is accuracy jumps to move forward. Everyone mentions articals and adv canopy in the sims. Well most don't read it cause they don't have too. Now they do. Now all these canopy course that have been out there you need to take to further your self. Thums up for that. Restricting wing loading is not the problem. Like you said people are running into each other. That has nothing to do with wing loading. That has to do with people don't know how to fly their Canopy's. Let's. Start teaching them is all I am saying. This is what I think USPA is trying to do. I think we are arguing the same point it's I just think it needs to be done differently is all again sorry about typos using my phone and it's hard to see.
Edit to add
Bottom line is swooping and wingloading is not the problem here. People knowing how to fly there canopy is. adding a wing loading chart might slow people down but it will not help the situation. Teaching them to understand the wing over their head and how to use it will. Just my opinion.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 12, 2012, 10:57 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 12, 2012, 9:54 AM
Post #93 of 142 (945 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Then there are those who want to set world records but don't want to swoop. Need to
>accommodate them.

Already done. No proposed rules require anyone to swoop.

Good.

But that really wasn't the point of my post.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 12, 2012, 10:06 AM
Post #94 of 142 (939 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hey Doug,

What I have to say some may not want to hear. Does something need to be done? The statistics indicate yes. What we do is the question.

...

Rich Winstock

Statistics indicate that skydivers are killing themselves under perfectly good canopies for a variety of reasons.

I remain to be convinced that anything will improve much if the proposals are implemented. For sure, nothing will be achieved if DZOs aren't willing to enforce them.

What seems to be missing is a clearly articulated argument that the details of any WL BSR actually addresses the problems identified in the statistics, an indication of how it is to be effectively enforced, and some evaluation and improvement protocol so we can see if it's actually working once it is in place, and tweaking it to fix any issues that become apparent.

I think the BOD has been correct in holding off on this until the proposals meet some minimum standard for imposing a rule change on the community.


(This post was edited by kallend on Mar 12, 2012, 10:08 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 12, 2012, 11:37 AM
Post #95 of 142 (908 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>The student are learning so much that I think most don't retain most of what they learn.

Agreed. Which is why the B license requirements are a good start.

>Like you said people are running into each other. That has nothing to do with wing loading.

Faster canopies = less time to see and avoid.

>Let's. Start teaching them is all I am saying.

OK. You have a guy at your DZ who just wants to buy a Velo 96 and swoop. He refuses to get canopy coaching; he says he's fine, although he is clearly going to kill himself if he continues.

What do you do?


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 12, 2012, 11:44 AM
Post #96 of 142 (906 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

What do you do?

In reply to:

Unfortunately the only thing you currently CAN do is buy Bingo squares...that's gotta change. Unimpressed


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 12, 2012, 12:12 PM
Post #97 of 142 (897 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

lol I get that all the time. I tell them if that's what he wants to do so be it just not here. I know you will say its restricting them. I think it's just making the decision for them because they are not educated enough to make the decision themselves. Your question is a open ended question. Is it a guy that has 200 jumps or a guy with 1000. I would defiantly sit them down and explain the steps to get to said size canopy. Again I think we are arguing the same point that something needed to be done. I think a chart would be more of a headache with all the exceptions and what's the point if there is exceptions. What good is a chart if this guy or that girl can go outside the chart. Having everyone go threw a advanced course will change things


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 12, 2012, 1:26 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 12, 2012, 12:17 PM
Post #98 of 142 (894 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>I think it's just make the discition for the because them are not educated enough to
>make the decision themselves.

I agree. And that's why restrictions work - to give them enough time to get that education _before_ they cripple or kill themselves.

>What good is a chart if this guy or that girl can go outside the chart.

It's not good if anyone can do that. If they have to take a course BEFORE they can do that, then they'll take the course - and the objective (more education) will be achieved.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 12, 2012, 1:19 PM
Post #99 of 142 (880 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>I think it's just make the discition for the because them are not educated enough to
>make the decision themselves.

I agree. And that's why restrictions work - to give them enough time to get that education _before_ they cripple or kill themselves.

>What good is a chart if this guy or that girl can go outside the chart.

It's not good if anyone can do that. If they have to take a course BEFORE they can do that, then they'll take the course - and the objective (more education) will be achieved.

Agree so where does this chart fit in then? If everyone is taking canopy courses whats the chart for? How does that teach?

So basically the chart is a glide line of the person making the chart Who thinks said wing loading is good for everyone based off of jump numbers and no other factor. I don't see how you can do this with all variables out there that comes with it.
If you do include all the different situation in the chart. Whats the point. Either they are ready or they are not. A chart will never be able to tell you this. A course will.

Just got home man im sorry about all the typos in my posts.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 12, 2012, 1:27 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 12, 2012, 1:47 PM
Post #100 of 142 (864 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>Agree so where does this chart fit in then?

"You can't exceed the loadings on this chart until you take this course." That helps keep people alive until they take the course.


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Mar 12, 2012, 1:57 PM
Post #101 of 142 (916 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Wing Loading BSR...For a Pro rating, I believe you need to be rated on the canopy you're going to use on demo's? I'd say this could work for a wing loading rating. You do a course, put in the time, and become "Rated" on the wings allowed for that rating. If you want a higher rating, you get certified for that wing.

What if we separated the W/L rating from the actual license? Something like below...

Below is a rough sketch of what Im talking about and Ive given minimal thought to the exact numbers/wing loadings/etc. for the ratings. I post this just for discussion. Cool

__________________________________________
No canopy rating.. Non elliptical up to .8 w/l

class 1. B license required (card complete)
non elliptical up to 1.2w/l

class 2. C license required
non elliptical up to 1.5 w/l
semi-elliptical up to 1.2 w/l
No ellipticals! No X-braced

class 3. 500 jumps in class 2
non elliptical up to 1.7 w/l
semi-elliptical up to 1.5 w/l
elliptical up to 1.2 w/l
no X-braced

class 4. 500 jumps in class 3
unlimited non elliptical
semi-elliptical up to 1.9 w/l
elliptical up to 1.6 w/l
X-braced up to 1.4

class 5. 500 jumps in class 4
Open/swooper class
_______________________________________

I could now hold a C-3 license. I'd have the privileges of The C License on a canopy up to the class 3 restrictions.

Or, I could have a D-2 license with the privileges of the D license and fly a canopy up to the class 2 restrictions.

No Exceptions needed or allowed!!

Food For Thought flame on! ... or better yet, revise my rambling to make it work!


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 12, 2012, 2:40 PM
Post #102 of 142 (902 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Wing Loading BSR...For a Pro rating, I believe you need to be rated on the canopy you're going to use on demo's? I'd say this could work for a wing loading rating. You do a course, put in the time, and become "Rated" on the wings allowed for that rating. If you want a higher rating, you get certified for that wing.

What if we separated the W/L rating from the actual license? Something like below...

Below is a rough sketch of what Im talking about and Ive given minimal thought to the exact numbers/wing loadings/etc. for the ratings. I post this just for discussion. Cool

__________________________________________
No canopy rating.. Non elliptical up to .8 w/l

class 1. B license required (card complete)
non elliptical up to 1.2w/l

class 2. C license required
non elliptical up to 1.5 w/l
semi-elliptical up to 1.2 w/l
No ellipticals! No X-braced

class 3. 500 jumps in class 2
non elliptical up to 1.7 w/l
semi-elliptical up to 1.5 w/l
elliptical up to 1.2 w/l
no X-braced

class 4. 500 jumps in class 3
unlimited non elliptical
semi-elliptical up to 1.9 w/l
elliptical up to 1.6 w/l
X-braced up to 1.4

class 5. 500 jumps in class 4
Open/swooper class
_______________________________________

I could now hold a C-3 license. I'd have the privileges of The C License on a canopy up to the class 3 restrictions.

Or, I could have a D-2 license with the privileges of the D license and fly a canopy up to the class 2 restrictions.

No Exceptions needed or allowed!!

Food For Thought flame on! ... or better yet, revise my rambling to make it work!

Thats all great but you will be under loading some of the canopy's say a x-braced canopy by manufacturers recommendation is higher loadings on them. Im just playing devils advocate here. By putting a number on anything. It will lock you in. Now someone gets hurt under your chart. Lawyers will come in a say USPA knows better then the manufacturer that built it? What about that 100 lbs girl? What about all the other exceptions that come into play? Im not trying to be a dick. Just looking at the whole picture and what the real problem is.In my option is lack of education.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 12, 2012, 2:46 PM
Post #103 of 142 (898 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't know if those exact numbers would work...but the concept and lay-out are 100% IMO. I think you're onto something.




FWIW...I guess I'd qualify for the C-4 having over 500 jumps on a X braced Excalibur loaded @1.4? Sly ...me & my Madd Skillz! Devil


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 12, 2012, 2:50 PM
Post #104 of 142 (894 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>Thats all great but you will be under loading some of the canopy's say a
>x-braced canopy by manufacturers recommendation is higher loadings on them.

Then you should not be jumping a cross braced at those loadings.

>Now someone gets hurt under your chart. Lawyers will come in a say USPA
>knows better then the manufacturer that built it?

It is 1000 times better to avoid an injury or fatality than to construct a legal defense to insulate oneself from the outcome of that injury or fatality.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 12, 2012, 3:00 PM
Post #105 of 142 (892 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

It is 1000 times better to avoid an injury or fatality than to construct a legal defense to insulate oneself from the outcome of that injury or fatality.

Agreed and your point is? Education is the best way. I don't understand the argument in this. I say black you say blue. Good luck figuring out what would be good in those charts and ill just teach them how too fly whats over their head. This has been beaten to death. Im moving on. Good luck!


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 12, 2012, 3:02 PM)


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Mar 12, 2012, 3:24 PM
Post #106 of 142 (883 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Thats all great but you will be under loading some of the canopy's say a x-braced canopy by manufacturers recommendation is higher loadings on them. Im just playing devils advocate here. By putting a number on anything. It will lock you in. Now someone gets hurt under your chart. Lawyers will come in a say USPA knows better then the manufacturer that built it? What about that 100 lbs girl? What about all the other exceptions that come into play? Im not trying to be a dick. Just looking at the whole picture and what the real problem is.In my option is lack of education.

I'm no canopy expert. If you could change the numbers to make it right, what would you change? Keep in mind, I agree with your "lack of education" statement. That's why each canopy level increase would come with a course and training. You'd have to work at jumping small canopies.


(This post was edited by skyjumpenfool on Mar 12, 2012, 3:29 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 12, 2012, 4:16 PM
Post #107 of 142 (869 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>Education is the best way

Yes, we agree. Now, how do you get people to avail themselves of education? This is the part you keep skipping over. An educational system does no one any good if no one uses it.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 12, 2012, 4:29 PM
Post #108 of 142 (866 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

BING BING BING we have a winner. This is why USPA is starting to use one :)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 12, 2012, 4:56 PM
Post #109 of 142 (858 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>BING BING BING we have a winner. This is why USPA is starting to use one :)

We agree that education is important.

Now, how do we get jumpers to avail themselves of this education?


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 12, 2012, 5:08 PM
Post #110 of 142 (856 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>BING BING BING we have a winner. This is why USPA is starting to use one :)

We agree that education is important.

Now, how do we get jumpers to avail themselves of this education?

The question of course answers itself~

Show comprehension and competence through standardized achievement evaluation. . . testing prior to advancement.


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 12, 2012, 5:16 PM
Post #111 of 142 (851 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Compared to the chart, which is mostly about jump numbers, I prefer the systems where one can take courses or demonstrate skills to advance. Then it isn't about being held back while having to do millions of jumps.

(I realize you said you just made the numbers up for the sake of argument. It is a wee bit on the strict side at the moment, requiring a minimum of 1700 jumps to do what I was allowed to do at 205. AND many of those jumps have to be on progressively more aggessive wing loadings so forget the tandems etc in one's logbook.)

The chart does bring up one good concept to be argued: To what degree are you forced to downsize if you want to downsize more?

Certainly, if you are going to jump a certain canopy size, it is very very helpful to already have jumped the next size up of the same style of canopy.

But the chart requires jumping within a class a whole bunch before moving to the next class. Even if the number isn't 500 within a class, what are we looking at? 200, 100, 50, 20, 10? I'll admit the old school way of doing things was a bit rapid, maybe 2 or 3 jumps within a class before downsizing again.


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Mar 12, 2012, 5:37 PM
Post #112 of 142 (842 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
(I realize you said you just made the numbers up for the sake of argument. It is a wee bit on the strict side at the moment, requiring a minimum of 1700 jumps to do what I was allowed to do at 205. AND many of those jumps have to be on progressively more aggessive wing loadings so forget the tandems etc in one's logbook.)

Yes, it is on the strict side. The way it clearly needs to be. You see, this is the problem in the first place. I believe, as do others, that experience combined with education creates competance. You get experience by doing something over and over(jump #'s).

Within each category you'll spend 500 jumps going thru the downsizing progression while gaining experience , skills, knowlege, and understanding of each canopy. Again, this idea is just a brainstorming exercise and I'm hoping we're open minded enough to allow change and revision. This, as in all things, is a work in progress.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but the whole idea is to keep people from doing in 205 jumps what should be taking 1700. Cool


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 12, 2012, 8:37 PM
Post #113 of 142 (825 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Compared to the chart, which is mostly about jump numbers, I prefer the systems where one can take courses or demonstrate skills to advance. Then it isn't about being held back while having to do millions of jumps.

Ok, so how do you determine when a jumper is qualifed to demonstrate the skills for 'x' level of canopy or WL?

Without a guideline, you would have all sorts of newbies trying to get an advanced rating. Some of them will get lucky and pass the eval, but how long will their luck hold out while their jumping at that level all the time?

So if you have a minnumum experience required to take 'x' class, then you essentailly have a WL restriction based on jumps.

On the subject of being held back, if you look at Brian Germains chart, do you really think it's holding anyone back? A jumper with 200 jumps is cleared up to a 1.2 WL. If the guy weighs 165/170, than a 170 sq ft canopy would fit into the chart, do you really think that's holding the guy back?

Nine times out of ten, when you hear about a jumper who sounds like they have a 'high' WL, it generally just one or two sizes off what the WL chart would designate. The purpose of the chart is to come up with a plan that conservative enough that it works for everyone, without being overly conservative. If you do the math, and look at what jumpers would using if they worked with the chart, and then looked at where they would be if they went one size smaller, you can see that the 'one size smaller' choice is generally on the smaller side, and could raise eyebrows on some cases.

Overall, the point is that canopy selection and canopy control has evolved to the point that the status quo just isn't cutting it anymore. What canopies can do, and what people want to do with them has changed, and so must the training for using them. Part of that is teaching proper canopy selection, and since a huge part of that is experienced based, the chart will 'help' people until they have the experience to handle an 'anything goes' policy.


nigel99  (D 1)

Mar 12, 2012, 9:59 PM
Post #114 of 142 (812 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Ok, so how do you determine when a jumper is qualifed to demonstrate the skills for 'x' level of canopy or WL?

Without a guideline, you would have all sorts of newbies trying to get an advanced rating. Some of them will get lucky and pass the eval, but how long will their luck hold out while their jumping at that level all the time?

I believe it should be through proving your ability to meet specific advancement criteria. Obviously a properly structured progression will require you to do jumps in order to progress.

Based on jump numbers alone for canopy flight is rather silly. I have friends who have between 1000 and 12000 skydives each, however the bulk of their jumps are tandems. In some cases they haven't jumped a sport rig for a long time.

By forcing a proper training regime onto people it means those with focus and genuine skill can complete the progression quicker, and the slower, less skilled people are held back. Don't get me wrong though - a proper training regime may require 500 jumps to achieve all the skills. I am not looking for 'shortcuts'.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 13, 2012, 5:10 AM
Post #115 of 142 (797 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I believe it should be through proving your ability to meet specific advancement criteria. Obviously a properly structured progression will require you to do jumps in order to progress.

Ok, so if a level '2' canopy license allows you to jump up to a 1.1 WL, and a level '3' canopy license lets you jup at a 1.2 WL, and you need to make 100 jumps on level '2' before taking the test to advance to level '3', then in essence, that's the same as a WL chart.

With just a chart, the advancement criteria would be simply making the jumps. With your idea, the advancement criteria is making the jumps, and then demonstrating certain skills on your existng canopy before moving forward.

The idea being put forth, that combines a WL chart with canopy control courses at each license is almost the same thing, just with bigger intervals.

You would have a canopy control course in order to get your A license with 25 jumps. and then you would able to jump up to a 1.0 WL.

The next canopy control course would be at the B license level, which is 50 jumps min. The next downsize isn't until 100 jumps, when you would be cleared to jump at a 1.1 WL, provided you took the B license canopy control course. A jumper who chooses not to take the course, is free to continue jumping at a 1.0 WL.

The next downsize and canopy control course would coincide at 200 jumps, when a jumper is C qualifed. Again, take the course, move up to 1.2, Don't take the course, continue on at 1.1.

Finally, there are two bumps in WL at 300 and 400 jumps, with the final canopy control course coming at 500 jumps when the jumper is D qualifed.

Here's an idea, what if we modify the plan to include a test procedure at 100, 300 and 400 jumps, where there is no corresponding license qualification and canopy control course? This way, every downsize up to 500 jumps would have some sort of oversight to go along with it.

It could be a simple matter of an instrucotr or S&TA sign off, with the jumper demonstrating a couple of apporaches and landings within a given accuracy. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about a test-out process, where a jumper can move ahead of the WL chart, just a test-up procedure to make sure they should even be moving up with the chart at all. The chart is not a required downsizing progression, but the max allowable WL and you don't have to downsize to match it, but you can't downsize beyond it.


(This post was edited by davelepka on Mar 13, 2012, 5:12 AM)


ShotterMG  (Student)

Mar 13, 2012, 7:54 AM
Post #116 of 142 (780 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Dave, i have a serious question and i promise i am not posting to be a contrarian or a dick. :)
To me, this whole BSR approach is really ass backwards. Apparently you have been working on it for ten years. Writing proposals, talking about it ad nauseam on the internet, etc.. All in hopes of getting through to the BOD, hoping they create a useful BSR, and then hoping it is implemented and paid attention to. Yet, at the same time, i hear you guys often talking about how USPA doesn't enforce regulations and there is no practical bite to anything they enact. meanwhile years are going by and drop zones are operating as they always have.
in other words, you have taken the discussion away from the drop zone and brought ti the internet, the USPA, and everywhere but where it is needed. All in hopes that it will eventually come full circle and affect the drop zone itself.
I don't know the exact number but the US has something like 300 drop zones. Apparently you are an instructor at one of them. I can only assume your DZO and your instructors keep a close eye on your jumpers and use all your great ideas to keep everyone safe. I also assume Diablo does the same at his DZ. And Bill Vonn does the same at his. And all drop zones with a responsible staff and DZO also do the same. So how many drop zones are left? How many head instructors and DZO's do you guys know other than yours? So why don't you talk to them? Why not spend all this time and energy at the drop zone instead of the internet? All your work for creating new BSR's is most likely, by your own admission, going to be unenforceable. In this sport DZO's are the ones with teeth. Nobody, that is not one person, can get on a plane with a dangerously loaded canopy if the DZO says they can't. Obviously at your drop zone they can't. At Bill's they can't. At Diablo's they can't. I know at my DZ they can't. Every DZ i know of pays close attention to the issue. so who are the dangerous DZ's? Why not spend your time talking to these people? In the last ten years you could have visited every DZ in the country and agreed to make things better. And then, rather than having to wait for everything to come full circle, and for rules and enforcement to slowly trickle down to the DZ's, you would have actually stopped the problem in its tracks, right at the frontline.
If everyone of us takes our concerns to our brick and mortar dz.'s then we can affect change immediately. And we could skip all of the unnecessary regulations and paperwork and liability of creating more and more rules.
I am sorry if you have answered this question already. Its hard to read through everything on the subject But i would really like to know.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 13, 2012, 8:49 AM
Post #117 of 142 (765 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ShotterMG] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
How many head instructors and DZO's do you guys know other than yours? So why don't you talk to them? Why not spend all this time and energy at the drop zone instead of the internet?

The current situation is exactly what you describe, each DZO, S&TA or cheif instructor takes care of their own backyard in their own way. The problem with that is two-fold, first it allows for widely differing opinions on what is, or is not, an appropriate canopy or WL for a jumper. Some people (DZO, S&TA, etc) are better at making these choices than others, so if you're a jumper who happens to be a DZ where the decision maker is not that great, you end up getting bum advice.

The other side of it, and the other side of the BSR, is the education. If you continue to let things 'fall where they may' from DZ to DZ, how to do provide for the continuing education for the jumpers, or the quality of that education?

Quote:
In this sport DZO's are the ones with teeth

Correct, and that's why the WL deal needs to be a BSR, and the canopy control courses need to be a licensing requirement.

If you look at DZOs and compliance with the rules, one area that seems to do OK is the training and licensing requirements. The USPA has no shortage of changes, revisions, and additions, and most DZOs seem to stand behind those and implement them into their programs.

When it comes to BSRs, you introduce the legal principal of the 'standard industry practice'. In an activity no governed by actaul laws, the legal principal is that if you can prove that you followed the 'standard industry practice', then you did your duty and are not responsible for accidents.

Let's say a student goes in. If the DZ followed the UPSA student guidelines, used USPA rated instructors, and the like, then they followed the 'SIP' and that's their legal remedy in court. If it turns out they used a rig without an AAD, or a non-rated instructor, then the incident quickly becomes the result of gross negligence due to not following the 'SIP', and gross negligence is one of the things that the waiver cannot protect against.

In the end, aside from it just being a good idea, this is the reason that DZOs follow the BSRs. Once the USPA puts it in wrinting that it's a 'requirement', they have to toe the line, or risk losing big time in the event of an incident.

Quote:
Apparently you have been working on it for ten years

Not quite. A little less than 10 years ago I made my play for the BOD with these ideas, and got nowhere. I was told that this type of thing wasn't likely to appear on any agenda of any BOD meeting anytime soon.

A couple years later, in a one-on-one encoutner with a BOD member I brought it up again, and got a similar reposnse. At that point I got the hint, and gave up on the BOD.

As I've mentioned many times before, this is an issue of such significance in the community, that it shouldn't take a member bringing it up for to get attention from the BOD. Things like a slight change in the rules for competition accuracy might take a memeber initiative to get some attention. The competition accuracy crowd is small, and unless you actually compete, you might not know the ins and outs of the accuracy scene.

In the case of open canopy incidents, it's (seemingly) too big to ignore, and the fact that the BOD has managed to do so for so long, indicates there's some sort of systematic problem.

As far as posting it on the internet, you tell me a better method for putting my thoughts out there and reaching 'the masses'. A big part of this issue is shifting the thinking of the community toward conservative canopy choices and contunuing education. The USPA, being the 'ruling body' in the US, can give those issues immediate credibility by taking a hard line on them, and making a BSR and license requirement. Short of that, I can post my feelings and veiwpoints, and hopefully shift the thinking of 'some' jumpers in the meantime.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 13, 2012, 9:03 AM
Post #118 of 142 (761 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In the case of open canopy incidents, it's (seemingly) too big to ignore, and the fact that the BOD has managed to do so for so long, indicates there's some sort of systematic problem.

In reply to:

One really has to wonder why that is...I mean the USPA even published the FAA Administrator letter in the magazine. Surely they understand the 'gravity' of the situation.

This isn't a problem that will just go away and the trend seems to be a downhill one.

What WILL it take before the BOD recognizes serious action needs to be taken for the safety of the membership...THAT'S their job, it's in the USPA constitution!


DiverMike  (C 40024)

Mar 13, 2012, 10:25 AM
Post #119 of 142 (743 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What WILL it take before the BOD recognizes serious action needs to be taken for the safety of the membership

This is really bizarre. I have been involved with several high risk hobbies that have national organizations and I have never experienced such a vocal cry from the membership asking the certifying organization to limit their freedom. Usually the requests from membership are either 1. Leave us alone, or 2. Make this change so as an Instructor/Owner I can make more money. I have never been involved with an organization that responds to requests to make the activity safer with "meh - we'll get back to you someday".

If I were king of USPA for a day, there would be a Wing Loading BSR. It might not have an affect on at least 70% of the serious injuries and fatalities, but it would have some affect. I have yet to hear anybody say Brian Germain's chart would be a bad idea to implement.


ShotterMG  (Student)

Mar 13, 2012, 10:31 AM
Post #120 of 142 (741 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

As far as posting it on the internet, you tell me a better method for putting my thoughts out there and reaching 'the masses'

Which takes me again to my point "The masses" are not the problem. It's the DZO's and their instructors And more specifically, the ones who's decision maker is not that great, as you stated. Which translates into a handful, or couple handful of DZO's. After all, you know very well each and every jumper thinks their instructor is the best. Their attitudes and skills come directly from their instructors and DZO's . All these internet skydivers are simply parroting their instructors. These DZO's are a known finite entity. You can call them up and know who you are talking to. On the internet you have no idea who you are reaching or not reaching. Hell, you have told me you don't even think I am a skydiver. I have heard you tell others the same thing when you don't agree with them. So why waste your time lobbying every Tom Dick and Harry on the internet? Why not go to the limited number of DZO's who directly create the problem.
The problem with new BSR's is you are creating more liability for the DZO. More paperwork and more chances for people to sue. One guy packs a new canopy into his rig at home and doesn't tell anyone, gets hurt, and now the DZO has to unpack everyone before their first jump of the day in order to be within industry standards. Hence, you will have many DZO's and USPA people put up a lot of resistance to your plan. Go to these DZO's, ask for voluntary compliance, and they are 1000 times more likely to adopt your plan.
You don't need the USPA to do this for you. Brian created a wing loading chart that has been widely used and accepted all on his own. Create the Lepka progression chart and ask the DZ"s if they will follow suit. By seeking new rules, no matter how good your ideas are the nature of liability in this country will force DZO's to reject your plan outright as a business necessity wether they agree with you or not.


(This post was edited by ShotterMG on Mar 13, 2012, 10:34 AM)


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 13, 2012, 10:44 AM
Post #121 of 142 (749 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DiverMike] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

limit their freedom

In reply to:

I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree with that terminology.

No one is saying jumper X can't do something...just that they should receive training and follow a safer path of progression to get there.

You can't cave dive or wreck dive without training and a rating.

You aren't 'free' to fly instruments without same...

Continuing to look the other way as people ricochet off the planet with such regularity and gruesome results is irresponsible.

What is it...1/2 the fatalities and maybe 75% of the serious injuries are a result of open canopy flight, and the powers that be recommend pattern control?
Crazy


Ron

Mar 13, 2012, 10:46 AM
Post #122 of 142 (748 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
In the last 10 years there have been more books written, articles published, courses given and discussions on canopy safety than any other aspect of skydiving since the sport began. The opportunity for education is there. But the deaths under good canopies continue to rise each year. Only a fool can fail to see that without some form of regulation things are not going to change.

Leave it to Michael to wrap it up perfectly.


Ron

Mar 13, 2012, 10:52 AM
Post #123 of 142 (743 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It doesnt matter if a step is taken in the right direction it will never be good enough for some because the BOD has failed them for the last twenty years.

No, it is the BOD is STILL failing today.

Quote:
So, most sit back and bitch rather than let by gones be by gones and get involved.

I and others have been involved longer than you.

Quote:
IMO getting involved doesnt mean typing on DZ.com and bitching and moaning how they would do everything differently

Tried other routes.... was ignored. Only an idiot keeps trying to do something when the powers that be ignore them.

Quote:
But quite frankly I have gotten bored and discouraged reading threads and threads of complaints.

Now you might have a little clue about how we feel when dealing with the BOD.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 13, 2012, 10:53 AM
Post #124 of 142 (742 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ShotterMG] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

More paperwork and more chances for people to sue.

In reply to:

As long as we're fantasizing about lawsuits...

~why isn't the USPA concerned someone won't bring action against them from a wheelchair, by someone saying the governing body was told there was a problem....

... but refused to take measures limiting the ability for someone to jump a wing they weren't ready for in a way that crippled them.

Deep pocket & hey, anybody can sue over anything.
Wink


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 13, 2012, 12:58 PM
Post #125 of 142 (714 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If you do the math, and look at what jumpers would using if they worked with the chart, and then looked at where they would be if they went one size smaller, you can see that the 'one size smaller' choice is generally on the smaller side, and could raise eyebrows on some cases.

I certainly see your points and don't know the answers myself.

I bet a lot of differences in opinion lie with all the "exceptions" and whether to grant them or not. A bunch of people want no exceptions, while I want a lot of exceptions, some because it won't significantly impact safety, and some for personal choice.

Too many exemptions and there would have to be a session with a psychologist before every jump, and supervision by a coach for every landing, to determine if someone still fulfills the criteria to jump a certain canopy.

It is quite possible I suppose that we'd both agree that a jumper of a certain number of jumps and weight should probably be flying nothing smaller than a 170 as his regular canopy. It'll serve him well on starting to learn accelerated landings but is relatively forgiving.

But then I'd argue for exceptions. Like borrowing a canopy and playing with it for a few jumps, with little long term exposure to risk. Or doing hop and pops or otherwise not mixing it up in the pattern at a busy boogie. Or having a canopy that's OK as long as he is disciplined and knows it isn't the one to learn to swoop on. Or he's already put in time and money in other aviation activities, how much partial credit do you give for that?

So then a 150 might really not be particularly dangerous for some people and some circumstances, while a 135 would be acknowledged as high risk but fine to play with a little bit. Clearly it is a minority opinion, at least among those vocal about it here, that wing loading restrictions should only restrict the most dangerous activity, and not be about forcing "good" behavior.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 13, 2012, 1:35 PM
Post #126 of 142 (818 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DiverMike] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If I were king of USPA for a day, there would be a Wing Loading BSR. It might not have an affect on at least 70% of the serious injuries and fatalities, but it would have some affect. I have yet to hear anybody say Brian Germain's chart would be a bad idea to implement.

Education not regulation. We have BSR's in affect. One is no camera till 200 perfect example. its gives you your scenario with a jump number BSR. This BSR is broke everyday. A guy died last year with 150 jumps and jumping with tandem. Yes low turn was his last mistake. Maybe if he wasnt doing all the other stuff he might not of turned low. I dont know. So what good is it. Some dont enforce it with Gopro's everyone accepts that its plastic screws ect. Love that picture of the AAFI with a gopro and lines around it. You guys want a chart and make it a BSR. OK but what good is a chart and bsr if people are not following it. Guys are even saying USPA is doing nothing.
I think Differently on this. USPA has done more in the last two three years then the last six. The adv canopy sec that is in the sims is actually being used now. Instead of this is here if you want it. The other problem in this is who is qualified in teaching Adv canopy. I have seen AFFIs suck under canopy. so How are they teaching something that they suck at.
In the sats last year most of the low turns were from jumpers with 2000+ jumps. Most likely pilot error on all these (im guess) these reports on here are not the best. Dont know time in sport on any. How do you get a jumper with XXXX amount of jumps not to smash themselves into the ground. that was 45% of them last year. As far as canopy collisions just plan stupid if you ask me. You are not looking. This is where I think USPA hit a home run. Now everyone with in 50 jumps in their career has to take a canopy course. I think this will help with collisions. Again with AFF progression there is not enough on canopy. Ill re word that. It teaches you enough to get you to the ground safely. I don't think you can teach anything more then that in 25 jumps. I wouldn't mind another course before D either. Your a professional skydiver at this point able to get all rating ect. You should have to prove your skills under canopy at this point regardless of wing loading

Just food for thought at my DZ and a couple in the area. We have a proficiency card for new AFFI's its 20 jumps under the supervision of a seasoned AFFI. It works great. It takes the pressure off the new AFFI and gives them the confidence needed. So you dont have to wait for USPA to do something before you do. All Ideas I have read are great. Brian's chart is a good tool. Im just against any kind of regulations. I think they hold us as a whole and our sport back.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 13, 2012, 1:50 PM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 13, 2012, 1:44 PM
Post #127 of 142 (812 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
If you do the math, and look at what jumpers would using if they worked with the chart, and then looked at where they would be if they went one size smaller, you can see that the 'one size smaller' choice is generally on the smaller side, and could raise eyebrows on some cases.

I certainly see your points and don't know the answers myself.

I bet a lot of differences in opinion lie with all the "exceptions" and whether to grant them or not. A bunch of people want no exceptions, while I want a lot of exceptions, some because it won't significantly impact safety, and some for personal choice.

Too many exemptions and there would have to be a session with a psychologist before every jump, and supervision by a coach for every landing, to determine if someone still fulfills the criteria to jump a certain canopy.

It is quite possible I suppose that we'd both agree that a jumper of a certain number of jumps and weight should probably be flying nothing smaller than a 170 as his regular canopy. It'll serve him well on starting to learn accelerated landings but is relatively forgiving.

But then I'd argue for exceptions. Like borrowing a canopy and playing with it for a few jumps, with little long term exposure to risk. Or doing hop and pops or otherwise not mixing it up in the pattern at a busy boogie. Or having a canopy that's OK as long as he is disciplined and knows it isn't the one to learn to swoop on. Or he's already put in time and money in other aviation activities, how much partial credit do you give for that?

So then a 150 might really not be particularly dangerous for some people and some circumstances, while a 135 would be acknowledged as high risk but fine to play with a little bit. Clearly it is a minority opinion, at least among those vocal about it here, that wing loading restrictions should only restrict the most dangerous activity, and not be about forcing "good" behavior.

Indeed, the Devil IS in the details. Until davelepka realizes that he will continue spinning his wheels.

Billvon, on the other hand, does listen to input and adjusts accordingly.


DiverMike  (C 40024)

Mar 13, 2012, 1:52 PM
Post #128 of 142 (806 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
We have BSR's in affect. One is no camera till 200 perfect example.

It isn't a BSR - just a recommendation. Big Difference


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 13, 2012, 4:48 PM
Post #129 of 142 (787 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DiverMike] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

My bad I thought it was changed to a BSR


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 14, 2012, 3:44 AM
Post #130 of 142 (756 views)
Shortcut
Re: Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

I have a problem with all the guys discounting the importance of jump numbers. It seems you are supporting the Mad Skillz kids progressing through wing loadings quickly with fewer jump numbers and that, IMHO, is BS.

Discounting jump numbers is no different than discounting time-in-sport.

I don't care what you know or how capable you are of flinging your canopy through the air right now, you're sooner or later going to run into a situation that you haven't had the experience dealing with before and it's going to hurt a lot more at higher speeds.

Making a requirement that you do so many jumps before downsizing forces the Mad Skillz kids to gain at least some in-air experience before they break themselves.

An analogy:
Take a raw kid off the street. Give him him some education and teach him to mash the gas and steer a car. Put him in a Cup car on the track. He's nervous at first and puttering around (on his <1.0 wing loading) at 50mph.

Couple of laps and he gets a little more confidence and runs it up to 75 (on his ~1.2 wing loading). Wow! This is great I can DO this!

Couple more laps and he runs it up to 100 (on his <1.5 wing loading)....and splats himself against the wall.

All because he didn't put in the laps to work out how the damned thing will get away from him in the turns.

Discounting jump numbers is not the way to go.

Educate him, yes. AND restrict his speeds (wing loadings) to make him put in enough laps to gain the experience needed to drive that bitch like he stole it....and survive.

You would do a great service to the sport if you made up those jump numbers on the very conservative side with the idea of more jumps allowing more experience.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Mar 14, 2012, 4:43 AM
Post #131 of 142 (752 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Making a requirement that you do so many jumps before downsizing forces the Mad Skillz kids to gain at least some in-air experience before they break themselves.

I agree with you on the post but I want to point out that this could also lead to a ton of pencil whipping. and thus counterproductive. I know we have it now as well.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 14, 2012, 5:38 AM
Post #132 of 142 (747 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Take a raw kid off the street. Give him him some education and teach him to mash the gas and steer a car. Put him in a Cup car on the track.

Just to add some 'reality' to your analogy, if you want to race a Cup car, you need to earn a specific racing license that allows you to be on the track at that level of racing. You have to work your way up to that caliber of car, and the speeds it will hit.

I don't know exactly what's involved, but other racing organizations require a certain amount of track time (actual racing) in lower caliber cars, and the completion of driving schools that cater toward the series the driver is tryng to move up to.

To me, driving a slower car sounds exactly like a WL limitation, and taking a driving school sounds exactyl like a canopy control course.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 14, 2012, 5:41 AM
Post #133 of 142 (744 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I agree with you on the post but I want to point out that this could also lead to a ton of pencil whipping. and thus counterproductive. I know we have it now as well

This is a false premise. Just because there is a small segment of the population that will break the laws is no reason not to have any laws.

People pencil whip everything right now, from reserve repack cars, to license proficiency cards, to ratings applications. You're right, it's never going to stop, but that's no reason not to keep moving forward as a society for the 90% (?) of jumpers who do follow the rules.


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Mar 14, 2012, 6:38 AM
Post #134 of 142 (732 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Making a requirement that you do so many jumps before downsizing forces the Mad Skillz kids to gain at least some in-air experience before they break themselves.

I agree with you on the post but I want to point out that this could also lead to a ton of pencil whipping. and thus counterproductive. I know we have it now as well.

I find people to be, for the most part, honest. We can't solve all the worlds problems but we can take steps to insure our skydiving future is a safe one. Smile


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 14, 2012, 1:12 PM
Post #135 of 142 (692 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Making a requirement that you do so many jumps before downsizing forces the Mad Skillz kids to gain at least some in-air experience before they break themselves.

I agree with you on the post but I want to point out that this could also lead to a ton of pencil whipping. and thus counterproductive. I know we have it now as well.

I think we all know this already and we all know why that is....no enforcement powers from the USPA. The fallback is "We are not a policing agency."

I think we all know that the B-license CPC will be pencil-whipped, too.

As mentioned before...DZOs, S&TAs with integrity....not nearly as many as we would like, eh?


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 14, 2012, 1:14 PM
Post #136 of 142 (689 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Take a raw kid off the street. Give him him some education and teach him to mash the gas and steer a car. Put him in a Cup car on the track....

Just to add some 'reality' to your analogy,
Your added commentary is exactly what was meant by the analogy...exactly!


stayhigh  (F 111)

Mar 15, 2012, 6:16 AM
Post #137 of 142 (640 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

x brace at 1.4 would have front riser pressure so high that it won't even be budge.


topdocker  (D 12018)

Mar 15, 2012, 8:11 AM
Post #138 of 142 (623 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stayhigh] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
x brace at 1.4 would have front riser pressure so high that it won't even be budge.

Wrong.

There are some techniques and tools that would allow you to use front risers. We jump x-braces at 2.2 and do Canopy Formation with them, twenty five jumps in three days at the Nationals last year.

And we are "in shape" only because round is a shape.

This is a prime example of why we need more education out there...

top


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 15, 2012, 2:22 PM
Post #139 of 142 (587 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stayhigh] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
x brace at 1.4 would have front riser pressure so high that it won't even be budge.

Can you explain why you think that? I don't see it.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 15, 2012, 4:43 PM
Post #140 of 142 (572 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I have a problem with all the guys discounting the importance of jump numbers. It seems you are supporting the Mad Skillz kids progressing through wing loadings quickly with fewer jump numbers and that, bs.


I don't have a problem with jump numbers. I think they are important. I have a problem with restricting anyone that takes the time to learn something and shows they are capable of doing what they learned. Jump numbers are not a end all that you are making it. With tribune dzs out there it's really easy to get jump numbers high. With your charts that all these guys are making those guys can be on a crossbraced canopy in a year or so. So how is that helping. Teaching someone how to fly and then evaluating then is the best way. I don't understand why people don't see this. What's next put a year limit on when you can jump this or that. Come on. You want people to stop dying then teach them in my opinion.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 15, 2012, 7:44 PM
Post #141 of 142 (547 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
With tribune dzs out there it's really easy to get jump numbers high. With your charts that all these guys are making those guys can be on a crossbraced canopy in a year or so.

What's your point. Like it or not, jump numbers euquals time under canopy, and the best wat to learn is by doing. So the more jumps you have, the more opportunities you have to learn, it's a simple relationship.

If the WL chart was paired with required canopy control courses that coincide with the license program, you would be taking about a jumper with 600+ jumps and 4 canopy control courses under their belt. If that takes a year, two or three isn't the issue. 600 jumps equals 600 canopy flights and 600 landings.

There's no reason anyone should advance faster than the chart. If you're making 600 jumps per year, just tough out the year and make the jumps. If you're not doing 600 jumps per year, you don't need to be ahead of the chart anyway. It works itself out.

Again, I'll make the comparison to driving, as most people can relate. We all know it took time to become comfortable behind the wheel, and then it took time to 'learn the lessons' of the road where you were doing OK behind the wheel, but still making little mistakes. After a few years, you put it all together, and the majority of drivers manage to make it through the day without any 'errors'.

Canopies are the same way. It takes time to build the 'reflex' action of flying a canopy, and then it takes to learn a few lessons, and there's no way to get around either of those. Even the most talented canopy pilot still needs time to 'learn to fly' before their talent can be utilized. If they're talented and jumping hard, that talent will shine through sooner than later, and they have the skill and jump numbers to be on a 'sporty' canopy in no time. Of course, if they're not jumping that hard, then they don't need to be on anything beyond what the WL chart says.


stayhigh  (F 111)

Mar 16, 2012, 8:52 PM
Post #142 of 142 (508 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

vx at 2.2 load it is heavy as fuck compare to canopy such as katana or crossfire.

I don't see how vx at 1.4 will even fly nice or have any benefit of flying x-braced at such a low wing loading.

I load mine between 2 to 2.4. Higher the loading they tend to get lighter, so I can only assume that it will get heavier as a wing loading drops, maybe stays the same, i'm just talking out my ass.

Would you wanna fly vx 149 or Velo 150???


(This post was edited by stayhigh on Mar 16, 2012, 8:53 PM)



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)