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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.