Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Proposal for wing loading limits

 


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 1:07 PM
Post #1 of 166 (4211 views)
Shortcut
Proposal for wing loading limits Can't Post

From the other thread in General. Lots of people said "I want to see the restrictions before I'd agree to anything" so here's my first proposal on that:

Create four classes of canopy pilots. You could tie them to licenses or let them stand on their own. The list below assumes they stand on their own.

1) Novice.
Can jump up to the following limits (exit weight/size):
110-165/170 176/178 187/189 198/200 209/211 220/222 232/230

2) Beginner.
Requires 100 jumps and demonstration of the following skills under a canopy between 0 and 2 sizes above their loading limit:
-flat turn 90 degrees at 50 feet
-flare turn at least 45 degrees
-land crosswind and in no wind
-land reliably within a 10 meter circle
-initiate a high performance landing with double front risers or front riser turn to landing
-land with rear risers
Beginners can jump up to the following limits (exit weight/size):
110-143/135 154/150 165/150 176/158 187/168 198/178 209/188 220/198 232/208 243/217 254/227 265/230

3) Intermediate. Requires 500 jumps and demonstration of the following skills under a canopy between 0 and 2 sizes above their loading limit:.
-flat turn 90 degrees at 50 feet
-flare turn at least 45 degrees
-land crosswind and in no wind
-land reliably within a 10 meter circle
-initiate a high performance landing with double front risers or front riser turn to landing
-land with rear risers
Intermediates can jump up to the following limits (exit weight/size): 110-198/120 209/126 220/132 232/139 243/145 254/152 265/159

4) Advanced. Requires 1000 jumps and demonstration of the following skills under a canopy between 0 and 2 sizes above their loading limit:
-flat turn 90 degrees at 50 feet
-flare turn at least 45 degrees
-land crosswind and in no wind
-land reliably within a 10 meter circle
-initiate a high performance landing with double front risers or front riser turn to landing
-land with rear risers
Advanced has no loading limits.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 13, 2012, 1:47 PM
Post #2 of 166 (4115 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Bill, a very thoughtful proposal.

Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits?


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 13, 2012, 1:53 PM
Post #3 of 166 (4107 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.dropzone.com/...;;page=unread#unread

Are we not already talking about this here?


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 13, 2012, 1:55 PM
Post #4 of 166 (4100 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I do know last year 45% was 2000 plus jumps and this proposal would do nothing for them. Just sayin!


Born2Late  (Student)

Mar 13, 2012, 2:03 PM
Post #5 of 166 (4090 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't have a problem w/the weight limits. I do have one w/the high performance landing requirement. Why should a Noob be forced to do a double front riser approach? He or she may have no desire to ever do such landings.


rnicks  (A License)

Mar 13, 2012, 2:03 PM
Post #6 of 166 (4088 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe this was talked about somewhere else, but could you explain why the requirement for the high performance landing. I fail to see how having this skill if no desire ever to swoop is beneficial. I can't think of a scenario in which it would help for safety reasons.


JackC1

Mar 13, 2012, 2:08 PM
Post #7 of 166 (4080 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

This is basically a WL restriction based on jump numbers (after 100 jumps) as the canopy drills are the same for all levels. But really, a 90 degree flat turn is a good skill to have, but don't you think asking someone with 100 jumps to demonstrate it at 50ft is rather Darwinian? The same with an HP landing.


(This post was edited by JackC1 on Mar 13, 2012, 2:22 PM)


degeneration  (C 106811)

Mar 13, 2012, 2:17 PM
Post #8 of 166 (4068 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rnicks] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Other people have mentioned the point I immediately thought of when reading this. Why do you have to be able to do a double front approach?

I'm on 400+ jumps, have never done a double front riser approach, and to be honest, have no plans to in the foreseeable future. High performance landings don't interest me at all at the moment, so I'm happy to do the same style of landing as I've been doing for the last 400+ jumps - downwind, cross wind leg, into wind leg. All at sensible altitudes.

So as I've no interest in doing the double fronts, your proposal would limit me to the novice category, jumping something around a 180-190 for my exit weight. That doesn't seem fair.

The other bits seem fine ish, although I would be breaking the limits, I'm on less that 500 jumps, but am jumping a 132 quite happily and comfortably, but your limits would put me on a ~160... I wouldn't be happy with that!


DrewEckhardt  (D 28461)

Mar 13, 2012, 2:29 PM
Post #9 of 166 (4054 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Born2Late] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't have a problem w/the weight limits. I do have one w/the high performance landing requirement. Why should a Noob be forced to do a double front riser approach? He or she may have no desire to ever do such landings.

Because at some point he's going to land at faster than trim speed.

Maybe he gets back low from a long spot, needs to avoid an obstacle, or is just chasing the wind sock. He doesn't make a flat enough turn and picks up speed. Or perhaps he'll be holding brakes so he doesn't over-shoot the landing area (it works with modern canopies when there's a head wind) or to let some one else land first and he gets a surge close to the ground. In all cases he needs to flare from faster than trim speed.

Double front risers are the safest way to get that speed in a controlled setting because getting out of the resulting attitude only requires a pitch axis correction, the canopy will respond relatively quickly to control input because of where the jumper ends up relative to the canopy, and the jumper is traveling in the direction of landing during the entire maneuver so he doesn't conflict with the pattern or hurt himself trying to finish a speed inducing turn.


(This post was edited by DrewEckhardt on Mar 13, 2012, 4:38 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 3:08 PM
Post #10 of 166 (4021 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>I do know last year 45% was 2000 plus jumps and this proposal would do nothing
>for them. Just sayin!

You don't think that requiring them to demonstrate flat turns, flare turns etc would have helped them? There is a thread just below this one entitled "How a flat turn probably saved my life" - I think there is indeed some value in learning to do them.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 3:14 PM
Post #11 of 166 (4017 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Born2Late] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Why should a Noob be forced to do a double front riser approach?

Because it's a way to learn how to deal with canopies after upsets.

Someday you will be landing and you'll catch a gust. It can do really bad things like collapse your canopy. Fortunately, it is more likely to just disturb your canopy and do things like speed up your descent, slow it down, turn your canopy etc.

What happens then? If you turn, and you know how to flare turn and flat turn, you just turn back. You can avoid the panic response of "yank a toggle down" that has killed so many.

If you are slowed down by the gust, you will find yourself about to land at a lower airspeed, which is similar to landing in brakes. This is something that is already required on the B-license card - and thus you will be prepared for it,

If you are sped up by the gust, you will find yourself about to land at a higher airspeed, which is similar to landing after a double fronts approach. By learning how to do a double fronts approach you will be able to make such a landing safely.

(BTW I don't think anyone should be FORCED to do such an approach. If they feel they are unable to make such an approach that's fine, they should not. They should also stick to larger canopies so the lack of that skill will not result in serious injury should they encounter that sort of turbulence.)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 3:17 PM
Post #12 of 166 (4014 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JackC1] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>But really, a 90 degree flat turn is a good skill to have, but don't you think asking
>someone with 100 jumps to demonstrate it at 50ft is rather Darwinian?

Well, you have two extremes here.

One is a turn at 50 feet. If you can do that you're guaranteed to have the skill if you need it.

The second is a turn at 1000 feet. That tells you nothing; you could lose 200 feet in the turn and think "I got that down!"

The turn at 50 feet is indeed dangerous. Can you think of a safer way to demonstrate that skill? Doing it over water is a good way but most people don't have that option.


JackC1

Mar 13, 2012, 3:43 PM
Post #13 of 166 (3994 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>But really, a 90 degree flat turn is a good skill to have, but don't you think asking
>someone with 100 jumps to demonstrate it at 50ft is rather Darwinian?

Well, you have two extremes here.

One is a turn at 50 feet. If you can do that you're guaranteed to have the skill if you need it.

The second is a turn at 1000 feet. That tells you nothing; you could lose 200 feet in the turn and think "I got that down!"

The turn at 50 feet is indeed dangerous. Can you think of a safer way to demonstrate that skill? Doing it over water is a good way but most people don't have that option.


If you fuck up a flat turn at 50ft, there isn't much time to bail out which means you either nail it perfectly or pound in. Kind of all or nothing. I wouldn't want to force a 100 jump noob to take that risk and if it was made part of the canopy progression program, I'd expect to see broken bones. I'd drop the dodgy stuff from the beginner category altogether. Or at least move the altitudes up to something safer.

The other thing is why are all the canopy drills exactly the same for all levels? That does not require any real progression or skill improvement. If you can flat turn a 190, it doesn't take 500 jumps to learn how to flat turn a 170. And why are there no pattern flying requirements in there?


dthames  (B 37674)

Mar 13, 2012, 3:47 PM
Post #14 of 166 (3985 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
-initiate a high performance landing with double front risers or front riser turn to landing

I may not know enough to ask the right question but I do know that I never plan to be loaded more than 1.1 and never plan to do HP landing.

I see the "OR" in the statement. Can you describe the "front riser turn to landing"? I know what a front riser turn is but I have no desire to aggressively dive toward the ground just to prove I have the skills.

Would tying canopy progression to licenses largely redefine what the higher licenses have been, historically?

Novice and Beginner have the same defination. Level 1, 2, 3, 4 maybe.

Dan


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 3:49 PM
Post #15 of 166 (3982 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JackC1] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>I'd drop the dodgy stuff from the beginner category altogether.

If you can't do it under a well controlled environment you won't be able to do it when the shit hits the fan. All such exercises present some risk; the trick is to minimize the risk to the student while accurately emulating what will happen during the emergency.

>If you can flat turn a 190, it doesn't take 500 jumps to learn how to flat
> turn a 170.

Then they will be able to demonstrate that skill quickly, which is great.

>And why are there no pattern flying requirements in there?

That would be a good addition. What do you suggest? (Note that patterns are already covered both in the ISP and in the B license card, but there is nothing wrong with adding them here as well.)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 3:52 PM
Post #16 of 166 (3980 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dthames] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>I see the "OR" in the statement. Can you describe the "front riser turn to landing"?

Both are speed inducing maneuvers, intended to demonstrate how to handle the canopy at higher than trim speed. A front riser turn is a 90 degree turn from base to final using a front riser. This adds speed to the canopy and is a safer way to increase speed for landing than a 90 degree toggle turn.

The double fronts approach is safer overall, since you can drop the risers at any time without worrying about heading.


topdocker  (D 12018)

Mar 13, 2012, 4:09 PM
Post #17 of 166 (3967 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Not to say I am opposed to this, but there are still some holes that I see.

Who signs off for each category?
Who can waive if necessary?
How does this appear on your license and how do we change it as someone progresses up? Renewal of the license won't keep up with the progression of some pilots.
Is there a fee for moving up each category (like with licenses)?
If this is a BSR, is being overweight by a pound create a situation where someone is facing being kicked out of the organization?
Are you going to grandfather people in? (This could cause a rush of people downsizing before they are ready so they can get in before the BSR)
How do you force someone to weigh in?
Are you going to ask someone to unpack to see their main placard before they jump?
There are no currency requirements, aren't those important too?

The devil is always in the details....

top


DrewEckhardt  (D 28461)

Mar 13, 2012, 4:17 PM
Post #18 of 166 (3958 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JackC1] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This is basically a WL restriction based on jump numbers (after 100 jumps) as the canopy drills are the same for all levels. But really, a 90 degree flat turn is a good skill to have, but don't you think asking someone with 100 jumps to demonstrate it at 50ft is rather Darwinian? The same with an HP landing.

It's anti-Darwinian.

Eventually you're going to need to make a low turn or land with greater than trim speed (an incorrectly executed flat turn, surge from a braked approach, etc. will happen).

You're much less likely to hurt yourself where that's in a controlled setting (where you're not turning to avoid power lines you didn't see) and you're under a relatively large parachute.

The alternative is "not hook turn type people" (to paraphrase incident reports) getting smaller canopies "because their current parachute is boring" or "so they don't go backwards in wind" who get hurt and dead when things go a bit wrong doing something like landing off the airport and they don't have the right tools to save themselves.

Here's a guy who "wasn't a swooper never turned more than 90s base to final" who didn't use a flat turn to get back into the wind and died at a 1.2 pound/square foot wing loading:

http://www.dropzone.com/...rum.cgi?post=3709212

It would be reasonable to require a flat turn and front riser approach to clear people to jump something smaller than a student canopy since the situations where those happen can me more likely for inexperienced jumpers (they're in small groups so they exit later and don't yet have enough experience to decide when a spot is too far so out landings or getting back with too little altitude for a turn back into the wind is more likely).


(This post was edited by DrewEckhardt on Mar 13, 2012, 4:50 PM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 13, 2012, 4:21 PM
Post #19 of 166 (3950 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The turn at 50 feet is indeed dangerous. Can you think of a safer way to demonstrate that skill? Doing it over water is a good way but most people don't have that option.

Bill probably would agree that skydivers would learn that there are ways to practice prior to taking the test. A guide would probably have to be written to accompany the new rules, and canopy control coaches would surely be teaching people how to work up to the flight tests.

A similar situation is that you don't try to take a driver's license practical test with zero training. You can try, but it would be stupid.


Edit: That's a very good point about accelerated landings being required as a survival skill, not as a swoop skill.


(This post was edited by pchapman on Mar 13, 2012, 4:23 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 4:22 PM
Post #20 of 166 (3946 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Who signs off for each category?

Ideally a canopy coach. Since no such coach rating exists yet, it would be an instructor at the DZ for the time being.

>Who can waive if necessary?

I don't know. USPA has levels of waiverability:

-Full BOD
-Executive committee
-Any S+TA or I/E

I think I'd go with the first two.

>Is there a fee for moving up each category (like with licenses)?

I'd hope no, although canopy coaches could of course charge for their services.

>How does this appear on your license and how do we change it as
>someone progresses up?

I don't think it would. You pass the requirements, you get a card. Anyone who wants to sell you gear asks to see the card. If you do something dumb DZO asks to see your card. If you "can't find it" or something then you get grounded or get a really good deal on (larger) rental gear.

>If this is a BSR, is being overweight by a pound create a situation
>where someone is facing being kicked out of the organization?

No more so than someone who pulls at 1999 feet gets kicked out of USPA.

>How do you force someone to weigh in?

You have to know how much someone weighs to safely load the aircraft. If they lie they are endangering both the pilot's ticket and the other people on the aircraft. So there's already a MUCH better reason to weigh in than canopy loadings.

>Are you going to ask someone to unpack to see their main placard
>before they jump?

You could. But since this will likely become an issue when someone is doing something dumb (i.e. after they have deployed) it likely would be pretty easy to read the main placard at that point.

>There are no currency requirements, aren't those important too?

Yes, but there are already currency requirements to skydive at all. I don't know if we have to repeat them.


Born2Late  (Student)

Mar 13, 2012, 4:29 PM
Post #21 of 166 (3938 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I see your point, but... Correct me if I'm wrong. I've never played w/front-riser dives or anything like that. I've no interest in swooping. Does not the canopy slow right back down very quickly from such a maneuver? People playing w/90 front riser approaches at 1:1 slow right back down again, no?


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 13, 2012, 4:31 PM
Post #22 of 166 (3936 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>I do know last year 45% was 2000 plus jumps and this proposal would do nothing
>for them. Just sayin!

You don't think that requiring them to demonstrate flat turns, flare turns etc would have helped them? There is a thread just below this one entitled "How a flat turn probably saved my life" - I think there is indeed some value in learning to do them.

I do and to be honest didnt even look at it. I had my fill of charts in the other thread. Again dont think using a chart as a guild line is a bad Idea. Just having it a a BSR I think having people going threw courses learning all these drills and explaining why they are doing them. Another perfect example is the couple posts behind me both didnt understand why they didnt need to do double front if they are not swooping. If they took a canopy course they would understand why. We have different methods on how we think this needs to be done. I know we both want the same result. Less people dying.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 13, 2012, 4:32 PM)


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Mar 13, 2012, 4:32 PM
Post #23 of 166 (3933 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Any chance of making the canopy choices a little less conservative? I know a DZ where the newly licensed jumpers are given a decent bit of latitude as to what they can jump, and are encouraged to get a canopy that will be somewhat safe but also something they can fly for several hundred jumps before they even want to downsize (in most cases anyways). Of course, this DZ also emphasizes canopy skills almost as much as freefall ones, and it seems they have relatively few canopy related injuries.
If I am reading your chart correctly I would be required to jump a 210 - 220 canopy. I was on a 190 on jump #12, and stayed on it to around #150 (when it was destroyed on opening). I replaced it with a 189 Safire (so closer to a 170) - no way would I want to go back to a 210-220 sized canopy!
The rest of it seems fine to me, those canopy skills you list are super basic (with the exception of rear riser landings and induced speed landings)...


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 4:34 PM
Post #24 of 166 (3928 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Born2Late] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Does not the canopy slow right back down very quickly from such a maneuver?

Depends on the canopy, but yes, they slow down _relatively_ quickly compared to, say, a front riser turn to final. This is one of the advantages of front risers for jumpers concerned about the manuever - drop the risers and you are back to trim speed pretty quickly.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 4:35 PM
Post #25 of 166 (3927 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Any chance of making the canopy choices a little less conservative?

Sure, I posted this to get suggestions. What would you suggest?


tmccann  (A 61009)

Mar 13, 2012, 4:44 PM
Post #26 of 166 (1570 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The turn at 50 feet is indeed dangerous. Can you think of a safer way to demonstrate that skill? Doing it over water is a good way but most people don't have that option.

I'm happy to practice the hell out of my braked turns at altitude, but how would I know that I'm ready to demonstrate this skill at 50ft if I can't gauge the altitude lost when I practice? Also, as a practical matter, aren't turns that low forbidden at many DZs?

Some canopy coaches will go up with the student on a full altitude hop & pop and provide a level for the student to practice, while giving feedback. The student can practice his/her flat/flare turns and accurately gauge altitude lost. Same for riser vs. toggle turns. Why not let this substitute? A little more expensive, since it requires a coach, but perhaps the program could be devised to check several in-air skills at once?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 4:47 PM
Post #27 of 166 (1565 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tmccann] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>but how would I know that I'm ready to demonstrate this skill at 50ft if I
>can't gauge the altitude lost when I practice?

Yep, that's the rub. One way to do it is to sneak up on it; do it at 1000 feet, then 500 feet, then 200 feet, then 100 feet, then 50 feet. You'll see if you are losing way too much altitude before you get too close to recover.

>Also, as a practical matter,
>aren't turns that low forbidden at many DZs?

Hmm. I've seen DZ's prohibit turns over 90 degrees but not too many that prohibit turns at all below X feet.

>Some canopy coaches will go up with the student on a full altitude hop &
> pop and provide a level for the student to practice, while giving feedback.
>The student can practice his/her flat/flare turns and accurately gauge
>altitude lost. Same for riser vs. toggle turns. Why not let this substitute?

That could work, although it's not as accurate and does not teach the visual cues that someone who is actually turning low needs. But it would teach them the basic skills.


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Mar 13, 2012, 4:50 PM
Post #28 of 166 (1565 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I would suggest bumping down 1 size per category for Beginner and Intermediate - and honestly, I think required education would be much better than an arbitrary blanket w/l restriction. Do you not think if a program was put together where jumpers received about as much canopy education as they do freefall education, then not only would they make better canopy choices, but also be capable of flying and handling a smaller canopy or larger w/l sooner in their progression?
Has there been any thought in the direction of requiring some very basic CRW, or maybe requiring an altitude hop and pop (or even a series of them)? I learned more about canopy flight from doing CRW than anything, and when I started I did a lot of jumps where I opened at 12K and just saw what my canopy could do. I still do that when I demo a new canopy if the upper winds allow it....hell, in the summertime I do one everytime I am at the DZ and the winds allow for it.


(This post was edited by crotalus01 on Mar 13, 2012, 4:52 PM)


topdocker  (D 12018)

Mar 13, 2012, 4:50 PM
Post #29 of 166 (1563 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think a card will work in the long run. You could have someone who has several thousands of jumps over ten years and still only be in the Novice Category because they don't want to do the sign offs. Eventually, they could just downsize because "everyone knows they are good enough and they've been around so long."

At some point, there is going to have to be a database for lost cards. (Yes, I have my original D-license, but it looks like crap). An Expert card will have to be carried around for as long as you want to jump your HP canopies or it has to appear on your membership card. People lose stuff over time.

Does this count for tandems? Because they are student jumps....

I think we are looking to have to make a rating for Advanced Canopy Coach. Someone who can teach/evaluate/critique experienced jumpers who want to progress in their evolution of canopy training. I would hesitate to emphasize the swoop aspect of it and go more for the improvement of skills from opening, avoidance, control, pattern flying, predictablity of flight, entering the landing pattern, and landing.

I am more on board since a BSR really doesn't do much unless we educate jumpers. Then ultimately, the BSR becomes moot.

good discussion....

top




Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 5:01 PM
Post #31 of 166 (1551 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>and honestly, I think required education would be much better than an
>arbitrary blanket w/l restriction.

I agree. The purpose of this is not the restriction - the purpose is to get them the training they need to be able to perform those maneuvers before they downsize.

>Do you not think if a program was put together where jumpers received about as
>much canopy education as they do freefall education, then not only would they make
>better canopy choices, but also be capable of flying and handling a smaller canopy or
>larger w/l sooner in their progression?

Yes. But we have that education right now. Why don't most jumpers avail themselves of it? Because they don't have to. They can just buy a Velo 96 at 200 jumps. That's easier and cheaper in the short term.

>Has there been any thought in the direction of requiring some very basic CRW, or
>maybe requiring an altitude hop and pop (or even a series of them)?

1) I think CRW is a great idea. But you've seen people's reactions to front riser landings - can you imagine their reaction to someone telling them "you have to do CRW to demonstrate canopy competence?" That being said, no contact CRW is a good way to learn canopy control, but it's hard to describe what sort of skills are demonstrated on CRW jumps.

2) High altitude hop and pops are a good idea and would likely be how many people learn the above skills.

Note the above is not a description of how to learn those skills, or how to qualify coaches - just an attempt to describe what skills people should have before downsizing.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 5:04 PM
Post #32 of 166 (1550 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>You could have someone who has several thousands of jumps over ten years and
>still only be in the Novice Category because they don't want to do the sign offs.

That's fine. I am sure there are people out there with thousands of jumps with A licenses.

>Eventually, they could just downsize because "everyone knows they are good
>enough and they've been around so long."

Until they go to a new DZ, or try to enter a swoop competition, or want to do a demo. Eventually they'll think "geez this is a pain in the butt, I should just do the stupid maneuvers and get the card."

>I think we are looking to have to make a rating for Advanced Canopy Coach.

I agree. That has to be part of any such attempt to add canopy loading restrictions based on performance.


tmccann  (A 61009)

Mar 13, 2012, 5:04 PM
Post #33 of 166 (1547 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>but how would I know that I'm ready to demonstrate this skill at 50ft if I
>can't gauge the altitude lost when I practice?

Yep, that's the rub. One way to do it is to sneak up on it; do it at 1000 feet, then 500 feet, then 200 feet, then 100 feet, then 50 feet. You'll see if you are losing way too much altitude before you get too close to recover.

>Also, as a practical matter,
>aren't turns that low forbidden at many DZs?

Hmm. I've seen DZ's prohibit turns over 90 degrees but not too many that prohibit turns at all below X feet.

>Some canopy coaches will go up with the student on a full altitude hop &
> pop and provide a level for the student to practice, while giving feedback.
>The student can practice his/her flat/flare turns and accurately gauge
>altitude lost. Same for riser vs. toggle turns. Why not let this substitute?

That could work, although it's not as accurate and does not teach the visual cues that someone who is actually turning low needs. But it would teach them the basic skills.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm probably thinking of the combination of the strong suggestion not to make more than minor course corrections after final and the "no >90 under 1k".

I'll think through trying the flat turns progressively lower - I've taken them through my normal pattern (as low as 250 ft to final), but will talk to my local S&TA about bringing my final down lower to practice further. Frankly, the idea of turning that low to the ground scares me, but I take it that that's supposed to be part of the point.


Squeak  (E 1313)

Mar 13, 2012, 5:55 PM
Post #34 of 166 (1527 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Any chance of making the canopy choices a little less conservative?

Sure, I posted this to get suggestions. What would you suggest?
there does not appear to be any mention on canopy "type". WL is but one aspect of spanking yourself into the ground.


nigel99  (D 1)

Mar 13, 2012, 9:25 PM
Post #35 of 166 (1490 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I think there are a few flaws and problems.

It seems that forcing people to wait until 500 jumps from approximately 100 jumps to downsize is recipe for people bending the rules. On top of that your table then drops from conservative to about 1.6:1 wing loading at 500 jumps.

Why not stick with the current recommendations in the SIM? Also why not reach out to organisations such as the BPA that already have canopy progression manuals and procedures in place? I don't see the point in re-inventing the wheel.


MakeItHappen

Mar 13, 2012, 10:03 PM
Post #36 of 166 (1474 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

What definition of 'size' are you using?
something based on canopies that are available today or something well defined?

.


skyguyscott  (D 13458)

Mar 13, 2012, 11:42 PM
Post #37 of 166 (1460 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that doing CRW is great for really getting people to learn how to fly their canopies to the edge of their flight envelopes.

So is doing accuracy.

But, one thing I miss about the 90s is that we no longer have a single canopy that really can do everything well. I, for one, am not enthusiastic about doing CRW with micro-lined ellipticals. Today, we have different canopies for different disciplines, all at ridiculously high prices.

This proposal rests on the assumption that everyone wants to downsize so they can presumably swoop. But it is a much larger sport with other disciples like CRW and accuracy. Ever try using the winds to back up over the target? You can with the right canopy. Should I try these suggested skill sets with a strato-cloud? What if I just want to compete in accuracy? Or CRW? Or are we only interested in promoting swooping, or saying that this proposal is only for those who want to downsize so they can swoop?

One idea is to come up with a canopy training curriculum that includes several different tracks; a track for swooping, a track for accuracy, a track for CRW, a track for Demos (Pro Rating) etc.

But I wonder, if the goal is really not so much to train people for a certain discipline, but rather to fly and land safely under canopy, we should do that in the FJC and thoughout the ISP. I think we are guilty, during student training, of focusing much more on the free fall, and not as much on canopy control. I think we should have a designated ground coach watching and critiquing every student jump from the moment they deploy until touch down. There is no way the JMs can do that as effectively because they have to fly and land themselves, watching for traffic, and can't watch the student the whole time. If we spent as much or more time following the ISP canopy dive flows and critiquing their canopy skills as we do their free fall skills we would see a measurable improvement in safety. And if we can't even do that, or do it more consistently, then what good will implementing yet another training track do?


JackC1

Mar 14, 2012, 2:39 AM
Post #38 of 166 (1442 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>but how would I know that I'm ready to demonstrate this skill at 50ft if I
>can't gauge the altitude lost when I practice?

Yep, that's the rub. One way to do it is to sneak up on it; do it at 1000 feet, then 500 feet, then 200 feet, then 100 feet, then 50 feet. You'll see if you are losing way too much altitude before you get too close to recover.

So why isn't that part of the proposal? Instead you've got the one shot, do or die, 90 degree turn at 50ft natural selection test.

And why, for the third time of asking, are all the canopy drills exactly the same for all levels?


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 14, 2012, 5:26 AM
Post #39 of 166 (1418 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JackC1] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
And why, for the third time of asking, are all the canopy drills exactly the same for all levels?

They're not the same, the canopies are different. All canopies fly by the same mechansim and theory, the difference is in the degree of response and reaction you get to control inputs. I flare my Velo with the same basic motion that I flared a Manta on my first jump, it's just done at a different speed and with a different level of precision.

Determining if a jumper can 'handle' a canopy or not could very well be the same test for any canopy, with the only variable being the canopy.

That aside, my take on the whole idea is that it's too few steps along the way. I think the B Germain chart is the way to go when structuring that part of the plan. It maintains sensible WL along the way, but does allow for downsizing (small increments) at 100 jumps intervals. It's hard to argue with a .1 sq ft per pound downsize provided the jumper was doing OK with the current canopy, and had stuck with it for at least 100 jumps.

In terms of education, if you tie it in with licensing requirements, the canopy control course could take care of the 'test' requirements for those downsizes. For example, the B license class could be 'proof' the jumper is ready to downsize at 100 jumps, the C would coincide with the 200 jump downsize, and the D at 500 jumps.

As for downsizing at 300 and 400 jumps, a simple skills evel could be used. Make it like the PRO rating, with 3 or 4 declared jumps where an insctructor or S&TA observes, and you have to fly a pattern and land within a certain area. If one of the patterns includes a flat turn to final, then so be it.


(This post was edited by davelepka on Mar 14, 2012, 5:28 AM)


joephus  (C 41172)

Mar 14, 2012, 8:53 AM
Post #40 of 166 (1369 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Does not the canopy slow right back down very quickly from such a maneuver?

Depends on the canopy, but yes, they slow down _relatively_ quickly compared to, say, a front riser turn to final. This is one of the advantages of front risers for jumpers concerned about the manuever - drop the risers and you are back to trim speed pretty quickly.

What about people that physically can't do a front riser turn? They made front riser turns waviable on the A-License card would this be waivable if the person didn't posses the strength to do a front riser turn to final?


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Mar 14, 2012, 9:27 AM
Post #41 of 166 (1364 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Implement Brian Germain's chart as a BSR for jumpers up to 500 jumps. Require D license qualification and coaching/training targeted toward higher wingloadings and high performance landings for wingloadings above 1.5 and/or crossbraced canopies. Allow for waivers to everything except the training requirement for advanced canopies.

This is more in line with USPA's education not regulation stance. It allows for the exceptional noobie to advance faster. And it will not only keep 200 jump wonders with mad skillz from flying canopies they don't have the experience to handle, it will keep 1000+ jump wonders who don't have the knowledge or skills needed to fly high wingloadings and swoop specific canopies somewhat safely from jumping them as well.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 9:31 AM
Post #42 of 166 (1359 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Implement Brian Germain's chart as a BSR
>for jumpers up to 500 jumps.

Yeah, that's where the loading numbers come from.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 9:33 AM
Post #43 of 166 (1359 views)
Shortcut
Re: [joephus] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>What about people that physically can't do a front riser turn?

No problems. They can continue to jump their current canopy.

>would this be waivable if the person didn't posses the strength to do a front riser
>turn to final?

I hope not. People who are physically unable to control their canopies using all the controls should stay on a larger canopy. Imagine what will happen if they break a toggle line down low; they would be unable to flare. At that point the only thing that would save their lives is being on a larger canopy.

Note that you cannot currently get an A license under the ISP without being able to do front riser turns so this won't normally come up.


(This post was edited by billvon on Mar 14, 2012, 9:39 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 9:38 AM
Post #44 of 166 (1358 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JackC1] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>So why isn't that part of the proposal?

This only lists the requirements, not how to learn how to do them. (I wrote an article in the safety section about how to learn those skills.)

>Instead you've got the one shot, do or die, 90 degree turn at 50ft natural selection test.

?? No one said anything about "one shot." It's something that has to be learned over many jumps.

What we have today is (effectively) a one shot, do or die, hard low turn requirement with no training. It happens when someone finds themselves about to hit a fence. So they toggle turn and die. That's what this particular requirement is trying to overcome.

>And why, for the third time of asking, are all the canopy drills exactly the same for all levels?

They're not - the drills under the smaller canopies are a lot harder.

That being said there's no reason to put every one at every level, as long as all get learned. Do you have a suggestion for a different order?


(This post was edited by billvon on Mar 14, 2012, 9:41 AM)


Premier Remster  (C License)

Mar 14, 2012, 9:46 AM
Post #45 of 166 (1354 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
?? No one said anything about "one shot." It's something that has to be learned over many jumps.

Yeah. Heaven forbid they start by practicing high, then bring it to 50ft and start by doing small turns and slowly build up to 90deg. That would be too logical.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 9:50 AM
Post #46 of 166 (1352 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Squeak] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>there does not appear to be any mention on canopy "type". WL is but one aspect of
>spanking yourself into the ground.

Agreed. But it is, by far, the biggest.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 9:59 AM
Post #47 of 166 (1351 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Why not stick with the current recommendations in the SIM?

Here are the recommendations I can find in the SIM:

==============
Advanced equipment generally refers to canopies loaded
as follows:

a. above 230 square feet, 1.1 pounds per square foot or higher

b. from 190 to 229 square feet, 1.0 pounds per square foot or higher

c. from 150 to 189 square feet, .9 pounds per square foot or higher

d. canopies smaller than 150 square feet at any wing loading
=================

I don't think one definition of "advanced" is sufficient if we're going to have a few stages that jumpers progress through.

Are there other recommendations in the SIM that you think would be better to follow?


joephus  (C 41172)

Mar 14, 2012, 12:33 PM
Post #48 of 166 (1306 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
No problems. They can continue to jump their current canopy.

I imagine this would probably work given your weight vs. size limits. A 170 can definitely cover a wide range of smaller people for a long time. However, I could see instances of smaller people (sub 130lb range) being stuck on a lightly loaded canopy their entire skydiving career only because they lack the upper body strength for front riser inputs. That might not necessarily be a bad thing, but it seems a little draconian to me.

In reply to:
Imagine what will happen if they break a toggle line down low; they would be unable to flare. At that point the only thing that would save their lives is being on a larger canopy.

Well I'd hope they wouldn't be trying to flair with front risers which take considerably more upper body strength when compared to rear risers.

In reply to:
Note that you cannot currently get an A license under the ISP without being able to do front riser turns so this won't normally come up.

That simply isn't true. Look at the A profiency card again. http://www.uspa.org/...icenseProfandApp.pdf

7. Above 1,000 feet, perform front riser dives and
turns (may be waived if insufficient strength).


It does come up fairly often. My girlfriend along with several other female jumpers I know had to get this waived because they didn't posses the upper body strength to perform front riser dives.


(This post was edited by joephus on Mar 14, 2012, 12:34 PM)


topdocker  (D 12018)

Mar 14, 2012, 1:11 PM
Post #49 of 166 (1288 views)
Shortcut
Re: [joephus] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
No problems. They can continue to jump their current canopy.

I imagine this would probably work given your weight vs. size limits. A 170 can definitely cover a wide range of smaller people for a long time. However, I could see instances of smaller people (sub 130lb range) being stuck on a lightly loaded canopy their entire skydiving career only because they lack the upper body strength for front riser inputs. That might not necessarily be a bad thing, but it seems a little draconian to me.

In reply to:
Imagine what will happen if they break a toggle line down low; they would be unable to flare. At that point the only thing that would save their lives is being on a larger canopy.

Well I'd hope they wouldn't be trying to flair with front risers which take considerably more upper body strength when compared to rear risers.

In reply to:
Note that you cannot currently get an A license under the ISP without being able to do front riser turns so this won't normally come up.

That simply isn't true. Look at the A profiency card again. http://www.uspa.org/...icenseProfandApp.pdf

7. Above 1,000 feet, perform front riser dives and
turns (may be waived if insufficient strength).


It does come up fairly often. My girlfriend along with several other female jumpers I know had to get this waived because they didn't posses the upper body strength to perform front riser dives.

Then they need to go to a canopy course and learn how to do front riser turns. There are techniques and tools that allow you to do them without using all sorts of strength. Also, realize that this is a physical sport and having some strength may save your life.

You don't have to want to swoop to understand what front riser input can do for you, it is a technique that can help in the landing area.

Bryan Burke has a great Safety Day presentation about canopy accidents, and two of the major points are that most skydivers only know how to reliably use their toggles, and the more you use your toggles, the more you suck. Kinda along the lines of "if the only tool you have is a hammer, all the world is a nail."

Skydiving is a harsh mistress. We spent 20 or so years focusing on making freefall safer. AFF, tandems, AADS, full-face helmets, windtunnels, etc. and the effects are showing in the statistics. But the canopies have gotten much more dangerous over the same time span and we are seeing the effects of that. We now must focus everyone on how much safer we can make the canopy portion of the skydive.

top


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 1:22 PM
Post #50 of 166 (1281 views)
Shortcut
Re: [joephus] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>My girlfriend along with several other female jumpers I know had to get this waived
>because they didn't posses the upper body strength to perform front riser dives.

I would hope that they would also start working on having enough strength to control their canopies well. The risers (both front and rear) are ways to get more control of your canopy; they shouldn't be ignored by canopy pilots.


joephus  (C 41172)

Mar 14, 2012, 1:25 PM
Post #51 of 166 (1235 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Then they need to go to a canopy course and learn how to do front riser turns. There are techniques and tools that allow you to do them without using all sorts of strength. Also, realize that this is a physical sport and having some strength may save your life.

In that case should the wavability of front riser dives and turns on the A-License proficiency card be removed?


(This post was edited by joephus on Mar 14, 2012, 1:26 PM)


topdocker  (D 12018)

Mar 14, 2012, 1:34 PM
Post #52 of 166 (1227 views)
Shortcut
Re: [joephus] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Then they need to go to a canopy course and learn how to do front riser turns. There are techniques and tools that allow you to do them without using all sorts of strength. Also, realize that this is a physical sport and having some strength may save your life.

In that case should the wavability of front riser dives and turns on the A-License proficiency card be removed?

I probably would not think so. It's early in your career and most likely you are jumping student/rental gear that tends to be a little bigger and less responsive.

But as you get into your own rig, the expectations of your knowledge base and abilites should increase dramatically.

top


joephus  (C 41172)

Mar 14, 2012, 1:41 PM
Post #53 of 166 (1222 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I would hope that they would also start working on having enough strength to control their canopies well. The risers (both front and rear) are ways to get more control of your canopy; they shouldn't be ignored by canopy pilots.

Some people just aren't going to have enough strength to do it, it's just a genetics thing and nothing physically can change that. If there are techniques that can remove strength out of the equation, as Top suggests then those need to be taught earlier in the student progression. Or, at the very least in the beginners type canopy course. I just took Flight-1's canopy control course and front riser inputs aren't really covered that much at all in the material.


(This post was edited by joephus on Mar 14, 2012, 1:44 PM)


Ion01  (B License)

Mar 14, 2012, 1:52 PM
Post #54 of 166 (1212 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Why don't we require AADs? Why don't we require RSL? Why not Hook knives and training signoff for them? Why don't we require rigs with tuck tabs? Why not certain materials? How about the USPA regulate BASE? How about require 7 cell mains? These could all save peoples lives!

If I want to buy something then I should be able to do what I want. We all understand the sport is risky and we can choose to increase or decrease the risk to ourselves. If a DZO doesn't want to you jump cause of your lack of experience he will not let you on his airplane. I am wondering at what point the USPA may become so restrictive that the majority begins to move away from it. The USPA was established to help protect our freedom from the US Government, not to remove our freedom for the US Government.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 2:25 PM
Post #55 of 166 (1201 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ion01] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Why don't we require AADs? Why don't we require RSL? Why not Hook knives and
>training signoff for them? Why don't we require rigs with tuck tabs? Why not certain
>materials? How about the USPA regulate BASE? How about require 7 cell mains? These
>could all save peoples lives!

Why do we require reserves? Or TSOed harnesses? Why do we have to pull at 2000 feet? Or use licensed pilots and certified airplanes?

Heck, why do we require an FJC before jumping? Why not just trust whuffos when they say "I'm ready to go?" Why do we require accuracy demonstrations or RW skill demonstrations? Why do we require water training? Because these things DO save people's lives.

The trick is to keep people alive until they have the knowledge to make good decisions. That's the objective. Right now we're failing at that.

>If I want to buy something then I should be able to do what I want.

Try buying a BASE rig and jumping it out of an airplane. Or a Velocity 96 reserve. You can't do whatever you want.

>The USPA was established to help protect our freedom from the US Government, not
>to remove our freedom for the US Government.

Good point. And the US Government recently sent us a letter telling us that they are watching canopy fatalities VERY carefully. They want to see what we will do next. If our response is "fuck them, I gotta right to kill myself" their next letter won't be so restrained.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 2:27 PM
Post #56 of 166 (1198 views)
Shortcut
Re: [joephus] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Some people just aren't going to have enough strength to do it, it's just a genetics
>thing and nothing physically can change that.

Again, that's fine. Someone with physical limitations should be able to skydive, but they cannot expect to do everything a more able-bodied skydiver can.

>If there are techniques that can remove strength out of the equation, as Top suggests
>then those need to be taught earlier in the student progression.

That's also a great idea, and would make sense to teach around the B-license point (i.e. in that proficiency card.)


Ion01  (B License)

Mar 14, 2012, 3:04 PM
Post #57 of 166 (1184 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Very nice response. I recognize there is a need for limitation, however, I believe those limitations should be set by the DZO. As you pointed out, the USPA got a letter from the government. Lets face it, it all comes back to the government regulating our freedom. I don't intend this to be a political post, however, this is a political subject in this aspect. Currently, a DZO does have the ability to choose not to be a part of the USPA, however, the majority find it far more of an advantage, as I do, to be a part of the USPA. The USPA may not be government funded but ultimately is government driven from the aspect that the government will simply take over at some point if the USPA doesn't do what they want it to do so, basically, the end result is the same, versus letting the free market dictate, if that means the market likes what you propose then so be it. I, in my limited knowledge of this sport, wonder at what point a free market would find these rules too far reaching, however, since these decisions are ruled by a government push we will ultimately never know. I, based on the statistics and the fact it points to deaths with people that have the knowledge these rules wish to bestow on people, believe they are over reaching. I may be wrong. However, I still maintain that my life is mine and if I wish to loose it I should be free to due so, although it may be hard to find someone who will let me get in their plane in order to allow my poor decision to due so. This is how the USPA is to save lives. Should it become a government mandate it is a different story.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

PS. I appreciate the USPA and its efforts.


DrewEckhardt  (D 28461)

Mar 14, 2012, 3:54 PM
Post #58 of 166 (1169 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ion01] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If I want to buy something then I should be able to do what I want.

That might be fine with me if you were only allowed to jump solo exiting on your own pass (the DZO might need to charge you extra for time on the engines and other parts requiring inspection/service at intervals dependent on operational time).

When you jump a parachute that you can't turn at low altitudes or are too scared to you become an unguided meat missile in the pattern and landing areas that endangers the rest of the load.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Mar 14, 2012, 3:57 PM
Post #59 of 166 (1168 views)
Shortcut
Re: [joephus] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Some people just aren't going to have enough strength to do it, it's just a genetics thing and nothing physically can change that.

I lack upper body strength and I jump a canopy loaded about 1.0. There are things I can do to reduce the front riser pressure to a point at which I can easily pull them down (holding them down is another story). Being weak isn't a good excuse for not learning to use all available control inputs.


councilman24  (D 8631)

Mar 14, 2012, 4:43 PM
Post #60 of 166 (1159 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

As best I can tell these presuppose a zp canopy of some type. 0-3 CFM fabric canopies are still a option for many people, especially for a first rig/novice jumper. They may very well have learned on a non zp canopy. These need to account for for canopy type.

I have other issues with a USPA plan this detailed. In other countries where the national association has the force of law and where all of the DZ's follow the same rules this might work.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 4:57 PM
Post #61 of 166 (1155 views)
Shortcut
Re: [councilman24] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>As best I can tell these presuppose a zp canopy of some type. 0-3 CFM fabric canopies
>are still a option for many people, especially for a first rig/novice jumper. They may
>very well have learned on a non zp canopy. These need to account for for canopy
>type.

They should, since porous fabrics are not typically loaded as heavily as ZP fabrics.


nigel99  (D 1)

Mar 14, 2012, 5:01 PM
Post #62 of 166 (1152 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Why not stick with the current recommendations in the SIM?

Here are the recommendations I can find in the SIM:

==============
Advanced equipment generally refers to canopies loaded
as follows:

a. above 230 square feet, 1.1 pounds per square foot or higher

b. from 190 to 229 square feet, 1.0 pounds per square foot or higher

c. from 150 to 189 square feet, .9 pounds per square foot or higher

d. canopies smaller than 150 square feet at any wing loading
=================

I don't think one definition of "advanced" is sufficient if we're going to have a few stages that jumpers progress through.

Are there other recommendations in the SIM that you think would be better to follow?


Sorry replying from a phone so don't know how to cut and paste. Section 5.3 main parachutes has recommendations on wingloading for A through D license.

Personally I'd like to see this paragraph become as widely quoted as the camera recommendation.


SRI85  (D License)

Mar 14, 2012, 5:19 PM
Post #63 of 166 (1146 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

How come landing down wind is not in any of your recommendations?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 5:54 PM
Post #64 of 166 (1139 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SRI85] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>How come landing down wind is not in any of your recommendations?

No wind is the farthest I went there. We could definitely add downwind landings if there were a way to do them safely for practice.


theonlyski  (D License)

Mar 14, 2012, 6:17 PM
Post #65 of 166 (1133 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
No problems. They can continue to jump their current canopy.

I could see a rush on canopy downsizing if this were to come into effect, and that would make for more dangerous skies, IMHO.


Squeak  (E 1313)

Mar 14, 2012, 6:25 PM
Post #66 of 166 (1129 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>How come landing down wind is not in any of your recommendations?

No wind is the farthest I went there. We could definitely add downwind landings if there were a way to do them safely for practice.

SlySlySly but it only looked like 5 knots downwind when i was setting up PiratePiratePiratePirateSly


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 14, 2012, 7:10 PM
Post #67 of 166 (1116 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I could see a rush on canopy downsizing if this were to come into effect, and that would make for more dangerous skies, IMHO.

Do you mean that people would rush to downsize if this type of BSR was imminent, in order to be 'grandfathered' in at a higher WL?

Some jumpers might do that, but again, you have to plan for the majority, not the (stupid) minority. Any jumper dumb enough to do that can just be added to the list of jumpers the BSR was too late to help. That list is already 10 years long, so if there's a small contingent of jumpers insisting on hopping on it at the last minute, then so be it.

Let's focus on the majority of jumpers who will fall in line with the BSR, and every new jumper who comes into the sport from here on in who will only know skydiving with a WL BSR and required canopy control courses.


(This post was edited by davelepka on Mar 14, 2012, 7:11 PM)


5.samadhi

Mar 14, 2012, 7:25 PM
Post #68 of 166 (1103 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>How come landing down wind is not in any of your recommendations?

No wind is the farthest I went there. We could definitely add downwind landings if there were a way to do them safely for practice.
what about get a radio and radio down before you set up landing approach? Would this be sufficient to safely do a downwinder?

I definitely would like to try a(nother) crosswind and downwind landing soon but wouldnt want to needlessly add risk..


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 14, 2012, 7:44 PM
Post #69 of 166 (1096 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>I could see a rush on canopy downsizing if this were to come into effect

I guess that's possible, but it happened in Norway and per Saskia there was no "rush to downsize." (I mean, was there a big rush to get B licenses before the new canopy signoff went into effect? Did people even notice?)


theonlyski  (D License)

Mar 14, 2012, 7:45 PM
Post #70 of 166 (1094 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I know of a few people that rushed to get their B in time.

I don't have any numbers to back it up though.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 14, 2012, 8:09 PM
Post #71 of 166 (1085 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ion01] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
However, I still maintain that my life is mine and if I wish to loose it I should be free to due so,
Yep. That mentality is what got us where we are today. Yep. You are free to lose your life if you want.
Do it in some other sport, eh? If I were King, you can bet your free butt that you wouldn't be doing it in this one.

In reply to:
...although it may be hard to find someone who will let me get in their plane in order to allow my poor decision to due so.
Nope. Not hard at all. When you get more experience and more time-in-sport, you will discover that.

In reply to:
Should it become a government mandate it is a different story.
Have you read Bill's statement about the letter? That is what we are trying to subvert and prevent.

In reply to:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
LaughLaugh
Like I said, knock yourself out....do it somewhere else, please.

In reply to:
PS. I appreciate the USPA and its efforts
.Well, yes and no. Yes, I too appreciate what the USPA does for us. No, I just wish they would be more responsive to our needs in a more timely manner..


nigel99  (D 1)

Mar 14, 2012, 11:49 PM
Post #72 of 166 (1061 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Here you are Bill.

Quote:
5. The following are suggested maximum wing loadings based on experience level:

a. A and B license 1.0 pounds per square foot (psf) maximum

b. C license 1.2 psf maximum

c. D license 1.4 psf maximum until demonstrated proficiency under canopy.

d. Jumpers should receive formal canopy training and consult with an S&TA before exceeding these recommendations.

6. Any parachute 150 square feet or smaller is considered a high-performance parachute and falls into the D license guideline regardless of the wing loading.

7. Further downsizing beyond the D license guideline above should be performed according to the downsizing progression listed in SIM Section 6-10 Advanced Canopy Flight.

This is what the SIM has under the equipment section 5:3 main canopy.


5.samadhi

Mar 15, 2012, 5:15 AM
Post #73 of 166 (1032 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

^ it screws light weight jumpers then. They could be forced under 1.0 until 500 jumps!


SRI85  (D License)

Mar 15, 2012, 5:47 AM
Post #74 of 166 (1022 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

What are your safety concerns for down wind? I think there is always a way to set your self up safely (i.e solo pass)


nigel99  (D 1)

Mar 15, 2012, 6:54 AM
Post #75 of 166 (1017 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
^ it screws light weight jumpers then. They could be forced under 1.0 until 500 jumps!

Not at all. See note d regarding training when exceeding the recommendations.


JackC1

Mar 15, 2012, 7:13 AM
Post #76 of 166 (942 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Low turns are dangerous. Swooping is dangerous. Usually the advice given is not to turn low and not to go swooping without many hundreds of jumps and some good quality canopy coaching. And here we are discussing mandated low turn, HP landings and down winders for 100 jump noobs. Do you really think someone with 100 jumps is going to have enough experience to nail a 50ft flat 90deg turn, a 90 front riser hook, a 45 degree carve and a down wind landing given the current levels of canopy training given?

And why the hell are you concentrating on get-you-out-of-the-shit maneuvers and totally ignoring all the shit-avoidance maneuvers? The superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations that require him to demonstrate his superior skill. Good choices above 1000ft will go a long way to making sure you don't need to get yourself out of the shit at 50ft. Totally ignored.

If you want to make people do this stuff you need to implement a solid training program to teach them how to do it without becoming one of the statistics you're trying to reduce. Even then, 100 jumps just isn't enough experience for the drills you're asking for. It would be reckless to try.


5.samadhi

Mar 15, 2012, 7:14 AM
Post #77 of 166 (941 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
^ it screws light weight jumpers then. They could be forced under 1.0 until 500 jumps!

Not at all. See note d regarding training when exceeding the recommendations.
If I'm reading correctly then you cannot get a sub 150 before D license, right? Then what about 100lb girls? Are they supposed to fly .6-.7 WL until they have 500 jumps? I could see that seriously being annoying as I fly 1.1 WL and sometimes have to fight with stronger winds and getting penetration into it.

If somebody has 300 jumps they should be able to fly a 1.3 (or whatever) WL so that they can penetrate winds regardless of whether thats a 135 or a 190 or whatever.

I think its all a pretty pointless conversation though, as far as I see the vast majority of fatalities lately have been experienced skydivers outside the boundaries of these charts (>500 jumps). Its quite the red herring being thrown around here.

I'd always err on the side of less rules and leave it up to personal responsibility (education at the dropzone by your mentors/friends).


Deisel  (D 31661)

Mar 15, 2012, 7:30 AM
Post #78 of 166 (931 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe there should also be some penalty for major mistakes (Cypress fire, hitting an obstacle, unsafe pattern flights, etc). There always has to be some teeth to back up and regulations to make them work.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 15, 2012, 7:32 AM
Post #79 of 166 (930 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

as far as I see the vast majority of fatalities lately have been experienced skydivers outside the boundaries of these charts (>500 jumps). Its quite the red herring being thrown around here.

In reply to:

...It will take a bit of time for the slowed progression/differently trained jumpers to move down stream and change 'those' statics.

Look at it this way, WOULD different and more conservative training for those 500 jump and up fatalities earlier in their career had a positive effect?

Well there no real way to tell...so lets try it for a decade and then look at the numbers, because as you show the WAY we do and DID it ~ doesn't seem work.


Squeak  (E 1313)

Mar 15, 2012, 7:36 AM
Post #80 of 166 (928 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
^ it screws light weight jumpers then. They could be forced under 1.0 until 500 jumps!

Not at all. See note d regarding training when exceeding the recommendations.
If I'm reading correctly then you cannot get a sub 150 before D license, right? Then what about 100lb girls? Are they supposed to fly .6-.7 WL until they have 500 jumps? I could see that seriously being annoying as I fly 1.1 WL and sometimes have to fight with stronger winds and getting penetration into it.

If somebody has 300 jumps they should be able to fly a 1.3 (or whatever) WL so that they can penetrate winds regardless of whether thats a 135 or a 190 or whatever.

I think its all a pretty pointless conversation though, as far as I see the vast majority of fatalities lately have been experienced skydivers outside the boundaries of these charts (>500 jumps). Its quite the red herring being thrown around here.

I'd always err on the side of less rules and leave it up to personal responsibility (education at the dropzone by your mentors/friends).
if you were reading it correctly you would have noticed
Quote:
c. D license 1.4 psf maximum until demonstrated proficiency under canopy.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Mar 15, 2012, 10:41 AM
Post #81 of 166 (921 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ion01] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I still maintain that my life is mine and if I wish to loose it I should be free to due so,

That is one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. When you are playing in someone elses crib you are not free to do as you please. If you feel the need to do stupid things do them at home not at the DZ.

Sparky


joephus  (C 41172)

Mar 15, 2012, 11:01 AM
Post #82 of 166 (913 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Being weak isn't a good excuse for not learning to use all available control inputs.

I agree, but it is enough of an excuse to waive it from licensing requirements, currently. That's why I brought up the question.


DrewEckhardt  (D 28461)

Mar 15, 2012, 11:02 AM
Post #83 of 166 (911 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If I'm reading correctly then you cannot get a sub 150 before D license, right? Then what about 100lb girls? Are they supposed to fly .6-.7 WL until they have 500 jumps? I could see that seriously being annoying as I fly 1.1 WL and sometimes have to fight with stronger winds and getting penetration into it.

EIFF claims a 22 MPH forward speed at .7 pounds per square foot for their classic accuracy canopy. Having jumped such a canopy in winds where they were using tandem catchers that seems about right (flying the entire landing pattern facing into the wind seemed the thing to do though).

Paraflite claims 26 MPH forward speed for their Intruder 360 with a more modern shape at 200 pounds and 34 MPH at 300 pounds but neglects to specify whether those are all-up weights.

That's enough.

In reply to:
If somebody has 300 jumps they should be able to fly a 1.3 (or whatever) WL so that they can penetrate winds regardless of whether thats a 135 or a 190 or whatever.

A 1.3 wing loading should be 14% faster than 1.0 pounds per square foot which isn't much.

We did just fine when technology limited us to a pound per square foot. People under like sized modern gear will be OK too as long as they learn to spot better and exit far enough up-wind from the DZ.


(This post was edited by DrewEckhardt on Mar 15, 2012, 1:42 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 15, 2012, 11:43 AM
Post #84 of 166 (901 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JackC1] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Low turns are dangerous. Swooping is dangerous. Usually the advice given is not to
>turn low and not to go swooping without many hundreds of jumps and some good
>quality canopy coaching. And here we are discussing mandated low turn, HP landings
>and down winders for 100 jump noobs. Do you really think someone with 100 jumps is
>going to have enough experience to nail a 50ft flat 90deg turn, a 90 front riser hook, a
>45 degree carve and a down wind landing given the current levels of canopy training
>given?

Not at first, no. They are skills that are critical to learn before you downsize, though.

>And why the hell are you concentrating on get-you-out-of-the-shit maneuvers and
>totally ignoring all the shit-avoidance maneuvers?

I'm not. There's already a good amount of defensive flying (flying patterns, stacking approaches, turn right to avoid collisions, tricks for extending glide) in the SIM, specifically the ISP. These additional skills are intended to go beyond those important basic skills into ways to get you "out of the shit" as you put it.

The reason I think they're important is because the lack of these skills (specifically the lack of the skill to flat turn low and land crosswind/downwind) leads to a significant number of fatalities. So it seems like just telling people "don't turn low" doesn't work.

>If you want to make people do this stuff you need to implement a solid training
>program to teach them how to do it without becoming one of the statistics you're trying
>to reduce.

Definitely agreed there. The canopy coach portion of this will be critical.

>Even then, 100 jumps just isn't enough experience for the drills you're asking for. It
>would be reckless to try.

I think that a jumper at 100 jumps, loading his canopy under 1:1, is a pretty good time to start trying to learn these skills. At that loading his odds of injury are greatly reduced, and at that experience level he is past the "oh god oh god I'm gonna hit!" phase. Keep in mind that at 200 jumps we are telling them they are ready to do _demos._


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Mar 15, 2012, 11:48 AM
Post #85 of 166 (898 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DrewEckhardt] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Not sure how accurate it is, but my Neptune shows me flying an average of 17 MPH forward speed under my Safire 189 loaded about 1.3. It shows me at 36 MPH under my Vengeance 170 loaded at 1.4.
For whatever thats worth...


JackC1

Mar 15, 2012, 12:53 PM
Post #86 of 166 (881 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The canopy coach portion of this will be critical

And there's the crux of the matter. Without mandating coaching, and good coaching at that (of which there is not enough), all you've done is set some dangerous hurdles to negotiate. There are enough people that don't get coaching and fly like shit as it is, if you force those hurdles onto people with insufficient experience and poor skills you would be rewarding the survival of some risky maneuvers with increased wing loading, and punishing failures with broken bones.

I think a better bet would be to only allow the 100 jump downsize after the successful completion of a recognized canopy control course to be signed off by an appropriate instructor. Rather than simply setting a bunch of high risk examination drills and expecting people to seek out coaching if they think they need it.


DrewEckhardt  (D 28461)

Mar 15, 2012, 1:17 PM
Post #87 of 166 (871 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Not sure how accurate it is, but my Neptune shows me flying an average of 17 MPH forward speed under my Safire 189 loaded about 1.3. It shows me at 36 MPH under my Vengeance 170 loaded at 1.4.
For whatever thats worth...

No.

Your Neptune measures descent rate.

Glide ratios are typically somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1 with the later at lower wing loadings, bigger canopies, or at braked flight (a big guy's drag from his frontal area becomes an increasing part of the total as his wing shrinks, smaller peoples' cross-sectional density is lower than big peoples', and while things like lines get shorter under smaller canopies they don't get thinner so their share of drag goes up without adding lift) which would yield at least 34 MPH of forward speed under the Safire. Some canopies are better due to aerodynamics or trim (Paraflite gets 4:1 from their Intruder military canopy), some are worse due to trim (even a F111 seven cell with a tall airfoil will do 2:1 in full flight).

The Vengence is probably trimmed steeper like most swooping canopies following the Stiletto.

You'd need to take a GPS unit up with you, measure your ground track in two directions 180 degrees apart, and do the arithmetic to come up with the forward component of your airspeed vector.


(This post was edited by DrewEckhardt on Mar 15, 2012, 3:38 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 15, 2012, 1:39 PM
Post #88 of 166 (862 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JackC1] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>There are enough people that don't get coaching and fly like shit as it is, if you force
>those hurdles onto people with insufficient experience and poor skills you would be
>rewarding the survival of some risky maneuvers with increased wing loading, and
>punishing failures with broken bones.

They should not be forced onto people with insufficient experience and poor skills. The "insufficient experience" is enforced by not letting people 'test out' until they have 100 (or 500, or 1000) jumps. The "poor skills" is covered by canopy coaching, which is the reason that requirement is here in the first place.

Currently we don't require canopy coaching as part of a C license, yet we require 25 jumps within 2 meters of a target. How does someone with absolutely no training on accuracy do that?


JackC1

Mar 15, 2012, 2:01 PM
Post #89 of 166 (854 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Currently we don't require canopy coaching as part of a C license, yet we require 25 jumps within 2 meters of a target. How does someone with absolutely no training on accuracy do that?

That hurdle is forced on people, just like your proposal would force 50ft flat turns on people. And again there are the mad skillz brigade who don't want or get coaching. Unless you force them, they still won't get coaching.

The difference is you can practice accuracy by trial and error and stand a good chance of surviving a mistake. A flat turn at 50ft leaves very little room for error and mistakes could very well prove painful.

You've obviously made up your mind and nothing I say will change it so I'm done.


virgin-burner

Mar 15, 2012, 2:24 PM
Post #90 of 166 (845 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I do know last year 45% was 2000 plus jumps and this proposal would do nothing for them. Just sayin!

and how many if you limit it to only 1000 jumps? this is a fact i've pointed out several times, but the argument is likely to be completely ignored..


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 15, 2012, 3:07 PM
Post #91 of 166 (830 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JackC1] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Unless you force them, they still won't get coaching.

I would tend to agree. That probably has to be part of the proposal.

>A flat turn at 50ft leaves very little room for error and mistakes could very well prove painful.

I'd disagree there. Almost anyone can do a 5 degree flat turn at 50 feet without trouble, and work up from there.


virgin-burner

Mar 15, 2012, 3:33 PM
Post #92 of 166 (818 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Unless you force them, they still won't get coaching.

I would tend to agree. That probably has to be part of the proposal.

why dont you propose a mandatory canopy-course at each license-level, say from a B-license on? or within a certain amout of time after a downsize?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 15, 2012, 4:18 PM
Post #93 of 166 (807 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>why dont you propose a mandatory canopy-course at each license-level, say from a
>B-license on?

I think that will have to be part of the proposal.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 15, 2012, 5:00 PM
Post #94 of 166 (791 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>I do know last year 45% was 2000 plus jumps and this proposal would do nothing
>for them. Just sayin!

You don't think that requiring them to demonstrate flat turns, flare turns etc would have helped them? There is a thread just below this one entitled "How a flat turn probably saved my life" - I think there is indeed some value in learning to do them.


I teach my students how to flat turn before they get their A. So yes I think it important. The problem is after their A they didn't have to learn anything else if they didn't want to. Just hit the pees a few times. The facts are how much do they retain in those 25 jumps is not much. I think now that you as a skydive having to take a course t after getting your A to get your B is perfect. They will retain so much more cause its the only thing they are fouced on. You don't see that yourself?


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 15, 2012, 5:03 PM)


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Mar 15, 2012, 5:27 PM
Post #95 of 166 (779 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DrewEckhardt] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks Drew. Yeah, the Vengeance is trimmed super steep - I believe the Katana is a bit steeper but at the time it was made it was the steepest trim of any canopy available (or so I was told). In fact, I put it up for that very reason - I never had any problems landing it (even landing out) but I always felt like I was behind the curve. Maybe I will be ready for it in another couple hundred jumps. Until then it resides in my locker....


topdocker  (D 12018)

Mar 15, 2012, 10:52 PM
Post #96 of 166 (753 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>why dont you propose a mandatory canopy-course at each license-level, say from a
>B-license on?

I think that will have to be part of the proposal.

I think USPA is working toward that, but wants to see how it works for the B license first.

top


robinheid  (D 5533)

Mar 15, 2012, 11:17 PM
Post #97 of 166 (752 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
From the other thread in General. Lots of people said "I want to see the restrictions before I'd agree to anything" so here's my first proposal on that:

Create four classes of canopy pilots. You could tie them to licenses or let them stand on their own. The list below assumes they stand on their own.

1) Novice.
Can jump up to the following limits (exit weight/size):
110-165/170 176/178 187/189 198/200 209/211 220/222 232/230

2) Beginner.
Requires 100 jumps and demonstration of the following skills under a canopy between 0 and 2 sizes above their loading limit:
-flat turn 90 degrees at 50 feet
-flare turn at least 45 degrees
-land crosswind and in no wind
-land reliably within a 10 meter circle
-initiate a high performance landing with double front risers or front riser turn to landing
-land with rear risers
Beginners can jump up to the following limits (exit weight/size):
110-143/135 154/150 165/150 176/158 187/168 198/178 209/188 220/198 232/208 243/217 254/227 265/230

3) Intermediate. Requires 500 jumps and demonstration of the following skills under a canopy between 0 and 2 sizes above their loading limit:.
-flat turn 90 degrees at 50 feet
-flare turn at least 45 degrees
-land crosswind and in no wind
-land reliably within a 10 meter circle
-initiate a high performance landing with double front risers or front riser turn to landing
-land with rear risers
Intermediates can jump up to the following limits (exit weight/size): 110-198/120 209/126 220/132 232/139 243/145 254/152 265/159

4) Advanced. Requires 1000 jumps and demonstration of the following skills under a canopy between 0 and 2 sizes above their loading limit:
-flat turn 90 degrees at 50 feet
-flare turn at least 45 degrees
-land crosswind and in no wind
-land reliably within a 10 meter circle
-initiate a high performance landing with double front risers or front riser turn to landing
-land with rear risers
Advanced has no loading limits.

AS usual, the most important element is overlooked: AERODYNAMICS KNOWLEDGE.

The FIRST thing all of these approaches need is the equivalent of a private pilot ground school, which is a training curriculum independent of and separate from flight training (although the two training paths are often done concurrently).

You can make all the wing loading-to-exit weight divided by chord times span calculations, rules and restrictions you want, but until the training system teaches to parachutists the same level of basic aerodynamics that private pilots receive, it's all just peeing in the wind.

Literally nothing you listed above makes any sense whatever if the person executing the list items has no clear how it all works in terms of basic aerodynamics.

I personally saved myself several times when I was learning how to swoop because, as a pilot, I understood what was happening to my wing before the sight picture told me -- thus I was already taking action before the sight picture resolved into usable data, which would have been too late.

And in just the last couple of years, there was a great wingsuit video of a guy in Norway setting up to buzz the switchback road and when he made his left approach turn from his launch point, he turned too sharply and gave himself an accelerated stall -- and before he actually started falling from the sky he pitched his pilot chute and opened about five FEET above the rocks (and then outflew the slope under canopy with no problem). In so doing, he demonstrated, as I did, that knowing the aerodynamics involved gives you an edge that can save your life because,as I did, he KNEW he had made a mistake and that the consequences would be fatal and thus he was able to take action before the sight picture told him, which, as in my case, would have been too late.

It mystifies me that someone with your experience, knowledge and generally sound judgment would be so incredibly off-base about the most fundamental thing we need to do differently -- and that is to teach people how to fly their wings as if they were actually pilots. I mean, really, what good is knowing what your wing loading can be for your experience/weight/canopy when you have no clue as to WHY?

It's all the fashion now to call ourselves canopy pilots, but you know, calling yourself a pilot doesn't mean you really are one.

You gotta put in the time, both in the cockpit and IN THE CLASSROOM.

Try again, guys.

44
Cool


(This post was edited by robinheid on Mar 15, 2012, 11:22 PM)


becka  (D 30967)

Mar 16, 2012, 7:42 AM
Post #98 of 166 (716 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Some people just aren't going to have enough strength to do it, it's just a genetics thing and nothing physically can change that.

I lack upper body strength and I jump a canopy loaded about 1.0. There are things I can do to reduce the front riser pressure to a point at which I can easily pull them down (holding them down is another story). Being weak isn't a good excuse for not learning to use all available control inputs.

I also lack the upper body strength I would like, but could use front risers reasonably well for turns and dives at 1 to 1 wingloading. Before that I did pull-ups or just didn't get much in the way of results even when the risers had some give. The issue is that this chart does not have small people even close to a 1 to 1 wingloading when they are to perform these actions or stay on the same canopy forever. The low end of the chart has a 55 pound range.

Broken record: Why can't there be a couple more columns to the left for light folks rather than lumping the 85 lb people with the 140 lb people? Or if we get research to say that smaller canopies are a so much more aggressive even at a light wingloading that we need that massive range, why can't we also understand that there are some things like front risers or landing with almost no forward speed on an 8mph wind day that are going to be more difficult by making this restriction?

We need input from small experienced jumpers to make the lower end of this chart. Having larger jumpers guess based on what has been done in the past without ever having to experience it or without putting the research into it is not reasonable. Slowing/stopping the progress of smaller jumpers by only considering the cherry-picked pieces of the puzzle doesn't seem at all fair.

That being said, I do appreciate the effort being put into the chart. It needs some work on the low end, but is a big improvement on the SIM.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 16, 2012, 12:30 PM
Post #99 of 166 (686 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>The problem is after their A they didn't have to learn anything else if they didn't want to.

Agreed; that's the biggest problem.

>I think now that you as a skydive having to take a course t after getting your A to get
> your B is perfect. They will retain so much more cause its the only thing they are
>fouced on. You don't see that yourself?

?? That's what I am proposing. The requirements are just a way to get people to take a course that's not just "watch me land a few times and I'll sign you off."


Premier faulknerwn  (D 17441)
Moderator
Mar 17, 2012, 8:23 PM
Post #100 of 166 (643 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I know of multiple 1000 plus jump number people who never learned to do all the basic stuff they should have learned when they jumped more docile canopies. I can think of 2-3 fatalities in the past few years when an extremely experienced person was having to land off airport on a small canopy in a tight area, and rather than doing a traditional approach or a braked approach, they did swoops instead,, and landing off airport in a small area they tried to do the same swoop they always did and it killed them. And I truly believe if those people have practiced more traditional landings on their small canopies, they wouldn't have felt the need to try to swoop into a tiny landing area.

If you swoop 2000 jumps in a row and never a 'slow' landing, when shit is happening, you resort to what you know. Everyone needs to practice slow landings - because if all you ever do is a 270, and it's been a thousand jumps since you practiced all that basic stuff you learned when you were a rookie, someone with 100 jumps who practices it every load may be more likely to survive.

Quiz the radical dudes at your dz and ask them when they last did a straight in landing. I bet a large percentage of them won't be able to remember and even say it's impossible on their current canopy which is bullshit. But if you never learned to do it on slow canopies, it's impossible to learn on fast ones.

And it really seems we have a generation of fast canopies pilots who only know how to go fast and never learned all of the other aspects of flight.

If we start requiring the next generation to go slower and take the time and really learn to fly their canopies, I truly believe the next generation of fast pilots will be a million times safer

Heck - I've been told by someone who teaches canopy courses than any brakes increases glide - and even though I do it on 80 percent of my jumps and have tons of video to prove how easy it to go straight down or back up in brakes as need be in the wind - I've been told its impossible. And in all honesty all my AFF students know how because they watch me do it all the time, but this person with thousands of jumps who downsized quickly, doesn't even believe its possibly when in reality it's pretty dang trivial to do.

There are a lot of people who have thousands of jumps on tiny canopies who never learned the basics. Requiring proof that they mastered the basics on each canopy before they downsize will make the nex generation of canopy pilots the best that have ever existed. Far too many of our current generation never learned the basics - and if you never mastered them on a 190 or the 170 or the 150 - it's hard to learn on the 99.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Mar 18, 2012, 9:22 AM
Post #101 of 166 (1343 views)
Shortcut
Re: [faulknerwn] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I know of multiple 1000 plus jump number people who never learned to do all the basic aerodynamics stuff they should have learned when they jumped more docile canopies.

If we start requiring the next generation to go slower and take the time and really learn basic aerodynamics as they learn to fly their canopies, I truly believe the next generation of fast pilots will be a million times safer


There are a lot of people who have thousands of jumps on tiny canopies who never learned the basics basic aerodynamics. Requiring proof that they mastered the basics basic aerodynamics on each canopy before they downsize will make the nex generation of canopy pilots the best that have ever existed. Far too many of our current generation never learned the basics basic aerodynamics - and if you never mastered them on a 190 or the 170 or the 150 - it's hard to learn on the 99.

Edited for clarity. Wink

44
Cool


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 18, 2012, 12:49 PM
Post #102 of 166 (1315 views)
Shortcut
Re: [faulknerwn] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
I think a few years from now this will happen less. None of the guys had to do anything once they got their A. Now you do. This will help with this stat. Again just my thoughts.

I have 2500 jump. The last 2000 or so were swoop type of landing. I have landed off where i had to come straight in. I also couple jumps back came straight in cause of too much traffic. Again I have taken a few canopy courses. Im the type that wants to learn about everything that im doing. So I looked for the education. But I see with people all the time.They go threw the FJC get their A and jump and keep jumping. They don't care about anything but jumping. Is there anything wrong with that. I dont know. I think now everyone having to take a basic canopy course after all the pressure of just getting your A. There will be better canopy pilots out there. Restricting one from doing something is just not a direction I would like our sport to go.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 18, 2012, 12:50 PM)


ctrph8  (D License)

Mar 19, 2012, 3:00 AM
Post #103 of 166 (1260 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

This whole thing sticks in my craw. Jumping at a high wind drop zone, these requirements would be prohibitive and particularly so for the lighter jumpers. I don't have the numbers to back this up, but the wing loading here is higher than the proposed limitations and this generally works well for us.

What I would suggest would be a way to test out of the requirements... or at least into a higher bracket. If someone has the skills and has done the work, let them prove it and move into a more appropriate canopy as they see it. The arbitrary jump numbers as indicators of ability could be a base line but if someone can test out early, let that be an option.

When I first bought a Saber in 1992 I was the only person at our drop zone with a zero P canopy. These discussions were rampant except instead of wing loading, it was canopy material.... That I was a 100 jump wonder and was jumping a Wonderhog was entirely beside the point. Wink


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 19, 2012, 6:59 AM
Post #104 of 166 (1241 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
.

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked:

"Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? "

No answer received.

Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 19, 2012, 8:50 AM
Post #105 of 166 (1226 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ctrph8] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
What I would suggest would be a way to test out of the requirements... or at least into a higher bracket. If someone has the skills and has done the work, let them prove it and move into a more appropriate canopy as they see it

How is that different than we have now? Currently, jumpers have to pass the opinion of the 'powers that be', be that the S&TA, the DZO, or head instructor. The end result is that someone is in charge of what is inappropriate, and that person's opinion becomes the standard.

Even if you have a test criteria, in a performance-based test where you cannot provide instruments to record the performance, again, the pass/fail all comes down to the opinion of the test administrator.

If a jumper is dedicated enough, they'll blow through the WL chart in short order, and be up to a 'sporty' WL in 300/400 jumps.

If a jumper is naturally talented, but not jumping at a fast pace, then they should be held to the WL chart because natural talent will only take you so far, you still need the experience to back it up. I took my son snowboarding for the first time, and within a few hours he was in control and linking turns. I didn't run him right up to the black diamond runs because he picked it up faster than his buddies, I just encouraged him and kept him training on the blue squares. Once he gets some time on the blues, then we'll take a trip upslope to the big stuff.

Citing high winds is not going to make your case. Much like canopies, the degree of wind you can handle goes up with experience. If you have less than 100 jumps, you simply shouldn't be jumping in winds too high for a 1.0 WL. If the winds are blowing that hard, you should be on the ground, not finding a smaller canopy to just to get you up in the air.

Following the progression allows for a greater level of freedom as you progress, just not before. If the winds are blowing too hard for the canopy you're allowed to be jumping, then they're blowing too hard for you to be up anyway.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Mar 19, 2012, 8:54 AM
Post #106 of 166 (1224 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
.

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked:

"Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? "

No answer received.

Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done.


Imposing rules without research is SOP these days, Perfesser. Please don't further confuse these peeps by asking them to apply something as quaintly archaic as scientific method to their musings.

44
Cool


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 19, 2012, 10:36 AM
Post #107 of 166 (1202 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
.

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked:

"Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? "

No answer received.

Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done.
Dude i didnt answer the first time and wont answer this time. Do the work yourself if you want to know such data. I looked and 45% were low turns with jumps over 2000. There is not much more info then that. So I dont know. Im not proposing anything so dont need to do the work. I dont think we should use a chart as a restriction.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 19, 2012, 10:39 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 19, 2012, 10:40 AM
Post #108 of 166 (1199 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ctrph8] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Jumping at a high wind drop zone, these requirements would be prohibitive and
>particularly so for the lighter jumpers.

I have to say I am not a fan of increasing loadings to deal with wind. That helps you when everything goes well, but either:

1) results in an almost guaranteed serious injury/fatality when someone lands downwind or

2) results in people killing themselves turning low because "GOTTA LAND INTO THE WIND NO MATTER WHAT!" is drilled into them so hard.

>What I would suggest would be a way to test out of the requirements... or at
>least into a higher bracket.

That can work and a few people have asked for that.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 19, 2012, 10:46 AM
Post #109 of 166 (1197 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
.

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked:

"Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? "

No answer received.

Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done.


Imposing rules without research is SOP these days, Perfesser. Please don't further confuse these peeps by asking them to apply something as quaintly archaic as scientific method to their musings.

44
Cool

LOL confuse such folks lol ok high and mighty. This website is a joke. One more week and you wont see me until i get bored next winter. So flame on!!! I took your comment as a insult. I am the only one that has shown any kind of stat in all of these proposal WL threads. Again 45% on fatalities were from people with 2000 plus jumps killing themselves. So all these charts would not helped any of them There are three or four of them on this site right now. Your so smart show me different.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 19, 2012, 10:48 AM)


ctrph8  (D License)

Mar 19, 2012, 11:12 AM
Post #110 of 166 (1191 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
What I would suggest would be a way to test out of the requirements... or at least into a higher bracket. If someone has the skills and has done the work, let them prove it and move into a more appropriate canopy as they see it

How is that different than we have now? Currently, jumpers have to pass the opinion of the 'powers that be', be that the S&TA, the DZO, or head instructor. The end result is that someone is in charge of what is inappropriate, and that person's opinion becomes the standard.

If a jumper is dedicated enough, they'll blow through the WL chart in short order, and be up to a 'sporty' WL in 300/400 jumps.



I think that's kind of the point. If someone is willing to put the time and energy into really learning to fly their canopy, we should reward that with letting them fly a canopy more suited to what they perceive as the best canopy for them. There is a lot of education that goes into it. That isn't to say that they WILL need a smaller canopy, just that they could if that is what worked best for them.

Also, I like that there is a human factor in determining some of these things. I can't speak for other drop zones, but the ones I've spent the most time at have very active S&TAs. I think this is a much better idea than an arbitrary number.


becka  (D 30967)

Mar 19, 2012, 12:20 PM
Post #111 of 166 (1179 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Citing high winds is not going to make your case. Much like canopies, the degree of wind you can handle goes up with experience. If you have less than 100 jumps, you simply shouldn't be jumping in winds too high for a 1.0 WL. If the winds are blowing that hard, you should be on the ground, not finding a smaller canopy to just to get you up in the air.
One issue is that many light people will not be on 1.0 WL or anywhere close for the first 100 (or more jumps) according to this chart or most other recommendations. I was not jumping in crazy winds, but still had a few elevator rides and a bunch of extra turbulence that no one else felt. And that was on my high performance Sabre1 150 at .9 wingloading (for about 250 jumps).


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 19, 2012, 3:18 PM
Post #112 of 166 (1159 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Again 45% on fatalities were from people with 2000 plus jumps killing themselves.
>So all these charts would not helped any of them.

Nope - but the education required to progress would. Education works - and restrictions that are in place until you get that education help people get it.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 19, 2012, 5:21 PM
Post #113 of 166 (1136 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Again 45% on fatalities were from people with 2000 plus jumps killing themselves.
>So all these charts would not helped any of them.

Nope - but the education required to progress would. Education works - and restrictions that are in place until you get that education help people get it.


Actually are you sure about that? You know that all of them have not taken canopy courses. If not neither your restrictions or the new canopy courses for B would of helped them. There is no way of knowing if what we will put in place would of help the past. We cant get any real data on what is the real problem. We need to know everyone's history to do this. For someone to say this would of help them is just talking out your ass. (Im not saying you per say)Im sorry. We see a problem and everyone has there opinion on how it can be fixed. No one has showed me anything that will support their idea in fixing the problems we are having in this area of our sport.

I do see a deficiency in our progression. One big one is the only canopy education you needed was on your A card. Bare minimum if you ask me. So we are moving in the right direction at least. Will it help? Not sure. Again no numbers to go by. I do think it will eventually make it a safer sky in the future.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 19, 2012, 5:23 PM)


virgin-burner

Mar 19, 2012, 5:42 PM
Post #114 of 166 (1129 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

the sky's pretty safe already, it's the ground that isnt! Tongue


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 19, 2012, 6:04 PM
Post #115 of 166 (1124 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
.

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked:

"Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? "

No answer received.

Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done.
Dude i didnt answer the first time and wont answer this time. Do the work yourself if you want to know such data. I looked and 45% were low turns with jumps over 2000. There is not much more info then that. So I dont know. Im not proposing anything so dont need to do the work. I dont think we should use a chart as a restriction.

I wasn't asking YOU to do any work - heaven forbid such a thing.

There is a burden on people who want to impose new restrictions on the rest of us to justify them. The proposers of the various WL BSRs need to do their homework. They haven't.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 19, 2012, 7:15 PM
Post #116 of 166 (1108 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ctrph8] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If someone is willing to put the time and energy into really learning to fly their canopy, we should reward that with letting them fly a canopy more suited to what they perceive as the best canopy for them.

The question is, what are they basing that perception on? I can base my perception of how different canopies fly on my experience flying them, and seeing the differences. Unless you've flown 'them all', you can't really say which ones are, or aren't, good for you. You could guess, but if you guess wrong, the consequences can be dire.

So even if someone has education, their ability to handle a canopy remains unknown until they try it. So the best method to dealing with this is to ensure that jumpers start at an appropriate level, and move one step at a time while taking an appropriate level of time at each step.

Without the steps, and some sort of requirement for time on each step, you could have jumpers making 5 or 10 jumps on one size before downsizing. In my book, that hardly 'proves' their ability to handle that size, and certainly doesn't allow them sufficient time to truely acclimate to the new canopy.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 19, 2012, 7:20 PM
Post #117 of 166 (1105 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Not really. There were a few collisions last year so it's not as safe as one might think.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 19, 2012, 7:23 PM
Post #118 of 166 (1103 views)
Shortcut
Re: [becka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I was not jumping in crazy winds, but still had a few elevator rides and a bunch of extra turbulence that no one else felt. And that was on my high performance Sabre1 150 at .9 wingloading (for about 250 jumps).

Just to be fair, as per B Germains WL chart, by 250 jumps you could have been on a 135 (at 1.0) or even a 120 (at 1.1).

Beyond that, you have to understand that you are far off the 'norm' in skydiving. When making rules/regulations/laws, you make them to apply to the largest segment of the population, that being the 'average', the middle of the bell curve. Even if people on the ends of that curve aren't perfectly served, you need to govern for the good of the many, not the few.

Do you really feel as if a 135 or a 120 would have been overly restrictive? The truth is, you might have had it better than bigger jumpers who might have been able to go 0.1 higher in WL, but would have still been on a 150 or larger. You might have ended up with a more responsive canopy by going with the smaller wing, even at a slightly lower WL.

Beyond that, .09 WL isn't rediculously low, and certainly isn't something that any manufacturer would consider 'unsafe' or 'under-loaded' for any of their canopies (HP models aside).


becka  (D 30967)

Mar 19, 2012, 8:04 PM
Post #119 of 166 (1095 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I was not jumping in crazy winds, but still had a few elevator rides and a bunch of extra turbulence that no one else felt. And that was on my high performance Sabre1 150 at .9 wingloading (for about 250 jumps).

Just to be fair, as per B Germains WL chart, by 250 jumps you could have been on a 135 (at 1.0) or even a 120 (at 1.1).

Yes, but according to this proposal, I couldn't have even been on the 150 until I had 100 jumps and done things including front riser maneuvers that would have been difficult or maybe impossible for me.

And according to the SIM, I shouldn't have been on that canopy until 500 jumps.

In reply to:
Beyond that, you have to understand that you are far off the 'norm' in skydiving. When making rules/regulations/laws, you make them to apply to the largest segment of the population, that being the 'average', the middle of the bell curve. Even if people on the ends of that curve aren't perfectly served, you need to govern for the good of the many, not the few.

While I am small, there are many skydivers that are smaller (to the tune of 10 - 30 lbs) than me and I think this warrants the extra column or two to the left and some consideration on the skill set required to downsize.

And it's not like it's that hard to do that. There is no damage to the larger jumpers to put the appropriate restrictions on smaller jumpers. To say the smaller jumpers are out of luck because there are more bigger jumpers is just silly.

In reply to:
Do you really feel as if a 135 or a 120 would have been overly restrictive? The truth is, you might have had it better than bigger jumpers who might have been able to go 0.1 higher in WL, but would have still been on a 150 or larger. You might have ended up with a more responsive canopy by going with the smaller wing, even at a slightly lower WL.

Beyond that, .09 WL isn't rediculously low, and certainly isn't something that any manufacturer would consider 'unsafe' or 'under-loaded' for any of their canopies (HP models aside).

You are right that a 150 usually wasn't that bad for me at .9, though the switch to the 135 and later the 119 was definitely appreciated. I do not believe at my size those two sizes are that restrictive...it's a matter of getting there and that is what concerns me about this proposal.

I would not go as far as to say that it was that more responsive than what a larger jumper would be on at a higher wingloading, it wasn't that responsive unless we are talking about detecting turbulence. I'm not complaining about a difference .1 in wingloading vs a larger jumper though. It's the much more dramatic differences in allowable wingloading (and lack of taking that into account on the skills required to download).


robinheid  (D 5533)

Mar 20, 2012, 6:42 AM
Post #120 of 166 (1046 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
.

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked:

"Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? "

No answer received.

Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done.


Imposing rules without research is SOP these days, Perfesser. Please don't further confuse these peeps by asking them to apply something as quaintly archaic as scientific method to their musings.

44
Cool

LOL confuse such folks lol ok high and mighty. This website is a joke. One more week and you wont see me until i get bored next winter. So flame on!!! I took your comment as a insult. I am the only one that has shown any kind of stat in all of these proposal WL threads. Again 45% on fatalities were from people with 2000 plus jumps killing themselves. So all these charts would not helped any of them There are three or four of them on this site right now. Your so smart show me different.

No insult intended. especially since you say you do NOT support the charting process being discussed. My point is simply that there's a lot of blah-blah without any kind of research. Yours is limited only to fatalities, and in fact, I totally agree with you: This whole discussion is pretty silly because the majority of the action taking place these days happens to people who are far beyond the reach of the proposed restrictions.

That is why I keep beating the basic aerodynamics horse and the private-pilot-level ground school horse: If you don't get them dialed into the fundamentals of flight -- ANY kind of flight -- early on, then no amount of bandaids in the form of the proposed charts and restictions is going to change anything. So if I understand your last post correctly, we be on the same page, so chill, my brothuh from anothuh mothuh.

44
Cool


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 20, 2012, 2:08 PM
Post #121 of 166 (1001 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
I agree with some of what you are saying. It is why I keep saying how is these charts going to help these guys from turning themselves into the ground. Everyone of them had 2000+ jumps.
.

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked:

"Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? "

No answer received.

Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done.


Imposing rules without research is SOP these days, Perfesser. Please don't further confuse these peeps by asking them to apply something as quaintly archaic as scientific method to their musings.

44
Cool

LOL confuse such folks lol ok high and mighty. This website is a joke. One more week and you wont see me until i get bored next winter. So flame on!!! I took your comment as a insult. I am the only one that has shown any kind of stat in all of these proposal WL threads. Again 45% on fatalities were from people with 2000 plus jumps killing themselves. So all these charts would not helped any of them There are three or four of them on this site right now. Your so smart show me different.

No insult intended. especially since you say you do NOT support the charting process being discussed. My point is simply that there's a lot of blah-blah without any kind of research. Yours is limited only to fatalities, and in fact, I totally agree with you: This whole discussion is pretty silly because the majority of the action taking place these days happens to people who are far beyond the reach of the proposed restrictions.

That is why I keep beating the basic aerodynamics horse and the private-pilot-level ground school horse: If you don't get them dialed into the fundamentals of flight -- ANY kind of flight -- early on, then no amount of bandaids in the form of the proposed charts and restictions is going to change anything. So if I understand your last post correctly, we be on the same page, so chill, my brothuh from anothuh mothuh.

44
Cool

Trust me I find this website entertaining more so then anything else. Don't get me wrong there is some good info here but most people posting have their own agenda behind their posts. This whole typic is being discussed in three threads. Anyway I'm chill just took your comment like it was directed at me. I'm far from that. Piece.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 20, 2012, 2:09 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Mar 20, 2012, 6:16 PM
Post #122 of 166 (966 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
but most people posting have their own agenda behind their posts.

And that would include you. What is your agenda?

Sparky


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 21, 2012, 1:07 PM
Post #123 of 166 (930 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
but most people posting have their own agenda behind their posts.

And that would include you. What is your agenda?

Sparky

Glad you asked. I don't want added regulation placed on my sport cause someone thinks they no best. Show where any of these propose chart would of helped or changed any of the canopy incidents. Just to assume that it will help change what's going on is stupid. Give me data showing it. If that can be done I would support it. Until then I'm againest any more regulations. Now you know Wink


jayrech

Mar 21, 2012, 8:17 PM
Post #124 of 166 (892 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Just curious and it may have been brought up earlier on in this conversation, but what are you going to do about higher altitude dz's. Is all this proposed for a dz at sea level?


ctrph8  (D License)

Mar 22, 2012, 12:13 AM
Post #125 of 166 (877 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
If someone is willing to put the time and energy into really learning to fly their canopy, we should reward that with letting them fly a canopy more suited to what they perceive as the best canopy for them.

The question is, what are they basing that perception on? I can base my perception of how different canopies fly on my experience flying them, and seeing the differences. Unless you've flown 'them all', you can't really say which ones are, or aren't, good for you. You could guess, but if you guess wrong, the consequences can be dire.

So even if someone has education, their ability to handle a canopy remains unknown until they try it. So the best method to dealing with this is to ensure that jumpers start at an appropriate level, and move one step at a time while taking an appropriate level of time at each step.

Without the steps, and some sort of requirement for time on each step, you could have jumpers making 5 or 10 jumps on one size before downsizing. In my book, that hardly 'proves' their ability to handle that size, and certainly doesn't allow them sufficient time to truely acclimate to the new canopy.


I think the key here is that they will have done the work first and then have the option to downsize. It might even be more than one size down too. If a guy my size went from a 230 down to a 190 it might (or might not) be a bit of a stretch but not unreasonable. I just think if someone is willing to go through the training and demonstrate a proficiency with the concepts AND execution of it, that should count for something towards being able to choose the canopy that is right for them.

Also, every one of us who tried a smaller/different canopy has had a time in their lives when they had not tried that canopy. The remedy for that is actually getting out there, trying things and learning. I only speak for myself here but I've tried lots of canopies and purchased many fewer.

Jump numbers alone are not the answer. Education and demonstration of that knowledge is the answer. We all know a version of "that guy" who has a ton of jumps and no clue.

I still hold that if someone can show that they have mastered the skill set, they should be rewarded for their work with the freedom to make a wider set of choices for themselves.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 22, 2012, 3:25 AM
Post #126 of 166 (1253 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ctrph8] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Jump numbers alone are not the answer

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Education has to go hand in hand with this type of thing, or it's useless. However, jump numbers do absolutely define the number of times the jumpers has landed a canopy, and experience is a huge part of saving your ass when it needs saving.

Quote:
I still hold that if someone can show that they have mastered the skill set, they should be rewarded for their work with the freedom to make a wider set of choices for themselves.

I agree. I'm just suggesting that it takes a minimum of 100 jumps to 'master' anything on a new, smaller canopy, so that's the minimum interval between downsizes.

The concept is sound in that if you are jumping at an advanced rate, you'll blow through 100 jumps in a month and be able to downsize just as quick. Your currency will be your advantage. Likewise, if you're not jumping at an advanced rate, you don't need to be downsizing that quick anyway.

The idea of a simple chart to follow for all jumpers is the way to go. If you try to cock it up with exceptions and test-outs, the whole program becoems complicated and cumbersome. It's clear that most people think they're an expection, and so everyone and their brother would be trying to test out of everything, and now you have the problem of adminsitering and tracking all of that business.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 22, 2012, 10:29 AM
Post #127 of 166 (1232 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The idea of a simple chart to follow for all jumpers is the way to go. If you try to cock it up with exceptions and test-outs, the whole program becomes complicated and cumbersome. It's clear that most people think they're an exception, and so everyone and their brother would be trying to test out of everything, and now you have the problem of administering and tracking all of that business.

I dont understand how you can say a chart will help. How do we know if all fatalities were following brians chart already or done Bill von Novak downsizing check list.
http://www.dropzone.com/...etail_page.cgi?ID=47
We dont. The problem I have is everyone knows there is a problem and have ideas on how they think it should be fix. Before we change anything the research should be done. To change things and make BSR's because one thinks it will help is not proactive. Are guidelines good to have for safety? YES. I am not against having a chart if it will help. I just have no evidence that it will or if any of them in the past already used them. So why would I support the making a new BRS that we don't know if it will help or not. None of these proposals have any hard evidence showing that it will help.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 22, 2012, 10:33 AM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 22, 2012, 11:11 AM
Post #128 of 166 (1222 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Before we change anything the research should be done

Research should have been done already. The problem is that nobody is collecting data to do the research with. So what do we do? Start collecting data on all injury-causing incidents, and do this for several years in order to come up with a reasonable amount of data?

Fine, let's do that, and in the meantime let's start using a WL chart and requiring canopy control courses to along with each license level. If a few years go by, and the data we collect shows us that the WL chart and education were not helping (or not helping enough) and there is a better way, then by all means let's switch to that. I just don't think that continuing to do nothing should remain a choice.

Quote:
I am not against having a chart if it will help. I just have no evidence that it will

Sure we do, it's every other country that currently uses a WL chart and has lower rates of open canopy incidents.

I'm not suggesting anything that hasn't proven itself elsewhere. WL charts are successfully being used abroad, and canopy control courses are held worldwide, and everybody seems to agree they're beneficial. In the absence of any other ideas, why not implement this as an alternative to doing nothing, even if it's just an interim measure while a more comprehensive plan is devised?

What's the harm?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 22, 2012, 11:34 AM
Post #129 of 166 (1215 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>How do we know if all fatalities were following brians chart already or done Bill von
>Novak downsizing check list. We dont.

Correct. Wouldn't it be nice to make sure that all HP canopy pilots HAD run through the checklist, or taken a canopy control course appropriate for their canopy and skill level? That would almost surely reduce the number of deaths under canopy.


Ion01  (B License)

Mar 22, 2012, 12:42 PM
Post #130 of 166 (1201 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
That would almost surely reduce the number of deaths under canopy.
That is a huge assumption. We could also assume that allowing nothing below a 1.0 WL would reduce deaths under canopy however that may increase the deaths due to people attempting HP landings on a 1 WL which provides little to no margin of error.
Or we can assume anything and as a result regulate anything.
WL is not the problem its the pilot, which, as you have said is linked to education, however, considering that these deaths are mainly linked to swooping by people who had the experience and education, it is doubtful at best that such regulation would have any effect. Swooping is risky but thats why they do it and they know it. I don't know what it is but there must be a better approach to this situation.
Also, has anyone considered not linking WL and just requiring canopy courses for each license?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 22, 2012, 1:01 PM
Post #131 of 166 (1194 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ion01] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>That is a huge assumption.

That education on how to land a canopy safely will reduce deaths caused by landing canopies unsafely? Since it is the same assumption we make in student training (i.e. teaching a student to skydive reduced his odds of injury during his first skydives) that seems like a pretty good assumption.

>WL is not the problem its the pilot, which, as you have said is linked to education

Yep.

>Also, has anyone considered not linking WL and just requiring canopy courses for each
>license?

How would that help the A license guy with 1000 jumps jumping a Velo 96 with no training?


Ion01  (B License)

Mar 22, 2012, 1:11 PM
Post #132 of 166 (1191 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
How would that help the A license guy with 1000 jumps jumping a Velo 96 with no training?
Considering I know a guy in just that situation (I don't know if he has had any training) I can most definitely say it won't help.


Ion01  (B License)

Mar 22, 2012, 2:06 PM
Post #133 of 166 (1182 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ion01] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Why not make the downsizing separate from a license in some way such as listing it on the license itself. In other words when you demonstrate the ability and/or take a class you get approved for downsizing just like you get approved to be a coach or instructor?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 22, 2012, 2:41 PM
Post #134 of 166 (1171 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ion01] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Considering I know a guy in just that situation (I don't know if he has had any training)
>I can most definitely say it won't help.

I think we're on the same page here.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 22, 2012, 5:15 PM
Post #135 of 166 (1143 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I know we have people killing themselves under good canopy's. I just dont think we need to make BSR's to fix the problem. You mentioned we dont have data. We actually do. USPA gets all reports that are filed. We could use that data. They could research if any of them took canopy courses or check lists and go from there. To make a BSR not knowing if it is going to change anything is silly. We do far more jumps here then in other countries. So we will have far more problems in those numbers.
I think we have two problems. First people don't know how to fly a pattern and check air space. This problem starts in the door. green light go scenario. In this problem wing loading chart wont help. I think we can agree on this. The other one is low turn into ground. People need to recognize when to bail and when not to do a (SWOOP) Wing loading chart might help here with faster recovery on lighter loaded canopy's. I still see a problem in this area even with a chart. I can get just as hurt on a 150 as on a 90 doing a low turn. If I don't see the picture and recognize to bail.
So how would I go at fixing both problems in one swoop you ask. I couldn't resist sorry. Education, Education, and more education On the 2 part A card. that most DZs iv been at use. There is only 8 achievements on it that you need to do. Yes I said 8. That's crazy if you ask me. Here is the card
http://www.uspa.org/...icenseProfandApp.pdf
No further education on canopy after that. Some accuracy landings for B and C which you can use your B landings for your C. So 25 total of 200. Now think back to your A. How much of that info did you really remember? I didn't. I just wanted to get 25 jumps so i could go freefly to tell you the truth. I only realized threw my education in getting ratings how little I really knew.
Uspa this year has moved on this and put a canopy course to get a B. Great move. Now a jumper gets cleared for A. Within 25 jumps they now have to take a canopy course by itself. With the progression we have there is so much info that know one will remember all of it. The B course will reinforce all info covered before. Skydive U is great in covering teaching and the students retention.
I think all good landings come from good set ups and patterns. Every bad landing I had was do to bad set up and pattern. 100%. So education on this will help.
I do think we need to do more then this. Adding another course for D would be a good Idea. I have seen some D jumpers that my students could out fly. At the D level you only need to do two night jumps and they can be waived if jumper doesn't want to do them. At is level you are being cleared as a professional skydiver. There should be some requirements proving you are a professional.
I think smarter jumpers make smarter decisions.

Canopy ratings. when this is mentioned know one mentions crew. Why?


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 22, 2012, 5:35 PM)


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Mar 22, 2012, 5:30 PM
Post #136 of 166 (1137 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I mentioned CRW, but Bill had a good point with his reply - as much hell as people raised about his proposed skill set possibly requiring a 90 degree flat turn at 100 feet, no way anyone would accept being forced to do some CRW as part of the skill or learning demonstration.
Personally I think CRW has done much much more to make me a better canopy pilot than the canopy courses I have taken, and I have not even scratched the surface of it due to lacking the proper gear to attempt anything more than small stacks, planes and proximity flying....

Edit to ask, has anyone considered adding another license type like Australia has? Perhaps require an F license for sub-100 swooping canopies?


(This post was edited by crotalus01 on Mar 22, 2012, 5:37 PM)


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 22, 2012, 5:39 PM
Post #137 of 166 (1128 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Yea Im not saying one needs to show crew skills to further themselves. Im saying they want to make two canopy ratings too teach. A basic and a advanced. (swooping) No one mentions a crew rating. I was just wondering why?

I guess you can make a endorsement on the advanced rating like on a cdl for driving


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 22, 2012, 5:48 PM)


robinheid  (D 5533)

Mar 22, 2012, 9:49 PM
Post #138 of 166 (1103 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jayrech] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Just curious and it may have been brought up earlier on in this conversation, but what are you going to do about higher altitude dz's. Is all this proposed for a dz at sea level?

The silence is deafening, isn't it, Jay?

Ten thousand words of blah-blah since you posed your questions and not a breath about about this major fatal flaw of this whole thread.*

And the answers are simple:

They have no idea.

It never occurred to them to consider it.

Further, the related equation is very simple: The higher the density or actual altitude, the less useful and more dangerous those precious charts will be.

What's LOL funniest about it is that the proposer of these limits jumps at a DZ that has some of the widest in density altitude variations of any DZ anywhere in the world -- and yet not a word about any of that from him.

44
Cool

* Along, of course, with the relentless refusal to address the need for a private pilot-level ground school on aerodynamics and the fundamentals of flight.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 22, 2012, 10:13 PM
Post #139 of 166 (1099 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
They have no idea.

It never occurred to them to consider it.

Just to be clear, B Germain's WL chart, which many use as an example of how to structure these things does include adjustments for DZ/density altitude and for lighter weight jumpers who might otherwise end up on 120 or 135sq ft canopies right after student status.

It was recognized, considered, and accounted for.

Funny thing is, about your position on this, is that you always come back to education and then make the comparison to private-pilot level aerodynamics. At the same time, you resist the idea of canopy classification and requirements for flying within those classifications, even though that's the example set by general aviation.

You need specialized training and instruction to be involved in the more complex areas of general aviation, both in terms of equipment and it's use. Some of those areas don't have a minimum experience required, and some do, however, the ones that don't are designed as such that it takes a fair measure of skill to achieve them, so the experience 'requirement' is built-in.

If learning to fly a parachute involved the same level of dedication and study as learning to fly a plane, that would be one thing, but even the most zealous canopy control nazi isn't suggesting anything close to that. On top of that, you lose the ability to provide dual instruction on a canopy like you could in an aircraft.

To sum it up, with extensive classroom and book study to go along with actual dual training, general aviation still sees fit to structure the movement of a pilot up the ladder of performance and complexity.

With a MUCH lower level of classroom and book training, and no dual instruction possible, you still think that education is the only thing we need? Not education and structure for the advancement of pilots?


robinheid  (D 5533)

Mar 23, 2012, 9:50 AM
Post #140 of 166 (1068 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
They have no idea.

It never occurred to them to consider it.

Just to be clear, B Germain's WL chart, which many use as an example of how to structure these things does include adjustments for DZ/density altitude and for lighter weight jumpers who might otherwise end up on 120 or 135sq ft canopies right after student status.

It was recognized, considered, and accounted for.

Funny thing is, about your position on this, is that you always come back to education and then make the comparison to private-pilot level aerodynamics. At the same time, you resist the idea of canopy classification and requirements for flying within those classifications, even though that's the example set by general aviation.

You need specialized training and instruction to be involved in the more complex areas of general aviation, both in terms of equipment and it's use. Some of those areas don't have a minimum experience required, and some do, however, the ones that don't are designed as such that it takes a fair measure of skill to achieve them, so the experience 'requirement' is built-in.

If learning to fly a parachute involved the same level of dedication and study as learning to fly a plane, that would be one thing, but even the most zealous canopy control nazi isn't suggesting anything close to that. On top of that, you lose the ability to provide dual instruction on a canopy like you could in an aircraft.

To sum it up, with extensive classroom and book study to go along with actual dual training, general aviation still sees fit to structure the movement of a pilot up the ladder of performance and complexity.

With a MUCH lower level of classroom and book training, and no dual instruction possible, you still think that education is the only thing we need? Not education and structure for the advancement of pilots?

An excellent set of points, Dave.

My premise is that all the canopy chart/restrictions blah-blah is meaningless without a private pilot-level ground school in aerodynamics and the fundamentals of flight.

First you have to build a foundation and we do not currently have that, USPA's Rube Goldberg training system notwithstanding... a system that, BTW, is analogous to teaching aerobatics from the first training flight and adding in takeoffs, landing and navigation as "oh-by-the-way" elements.

All the freefall-focused training from the get-go is heuristically insane -- and the excuse for persisting in such an approach is even worse -- "well, that's what the customer wants."

Yeah, right... so imagine if the "customer" who goes to a GA flight school says he wants to focus on aerobatics and doesn't want to be bothered with learning to first take off, land, navigate and understand basic aerodynamics and the fundamentals of flight.

Yet that is percisely what we do now, and all the blah-blah about the charts simply enables the continuation of this heuristically insane training structure. It's like proposing to put a bandaid on a severed artery and then feeling smug because "we are doing something" about the problem.

So, bottom line, Dave: I do not resist the idea of canopy classification and requirements for flying within those classifications; they are part and parcel of a complete flight training system.

What I resist is doing that without first changing the entire focus of our basic parachuting training from freefall first to freefall after.

The whole thing is economically insane too, both for customers and DZOs.

First, learning how to become a parachutist is crazy expensive because the customer pays for three slots to 12,500 feet -- along with instructor time for hours of superfluous "AFF" training that has no bearing on learning to fly, navigate and understand the aerodynamics and fundamentals of flying.

This reduces the number of people who will take up the sport in the first place.

Second, DZOs make a lot more money per slot dropping peeps from 4K than they do 13K -- and when they do parachute training loads, they can get in more loads per hour.

It would be silly simple to do:

1) Introductory tandems for a taste of freefall AND some of the dual instruction you say cannot be done with parachutes.

2) A parachute-focused training system, the graduation from which is followed by different learning tracks:

a) freefall
b) parachute
c) wingsuits

Pick your track, then follow a curriculum specifically focused on that customer-chosen track.

But everyone FIRST goes through a parachute-training-only basic flight and ground school. and earns a basic-level parachutist (not "skydiving") license. Then and only then do you branch out to the specific areas.

As you outlined with GA, Dave: Everyone learns the basics of flight and aerodynamics, then they branch off into the direction of their real desire and goal: aerobatics, multi-engine, instrument, whatever.

We pattern so much of what we do after what has proven to work in the general aviation field except for one glaring exception: basic training, skill development, higher-performance system qualification and currency maintenance.

And therein lies the heart of the problem. You said "if learning to fly a parachute involved the same level of dedication and study as learning to fly a plane, that would be one thing, but even the most zealous canopy control nazi isn't suggesting anything close to that."

Well, as this thread and its ancestors make clear, learning to fly a parachute does now involve the same level of dedication and study as learning to fly a plane, and until we understand that, all the blah-blah about charts and restrictions is just spitting into the wind.

44
Cool


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 23, 2012, 10:31 AM
Post #141 of 166 (1058 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

 

I hear what you're saying about the 'backwards' training system we have, but the problem is that it is what we have. Much like the modern and HP canopies that we're trying to learn to deal with, such is the freefall based training we have. The cat is already out of the bag, and it's what the masses want, so we need to learn to deal with it.

There's no reason that quality canopy contol and freefall based training have to be mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible to simply shift the focus of portions of the training to meet the goals you're after.

The FJC, for example, I think is fine as it sits. Let's face it, people want to freefall and people expect instant gratification, so being able to offer that is a draw. Given the level of oversight between student wind limits, student rigs, radios and multiple instructors, I don't see any shortcomings with the FJC. It's very 'babysitting' intensive, and that's why anyone and their brother can make an AFF lv. 1 jump.

Given the massive amount of info presented to a FJC student, it's best not to add to it. What should be done, however, is for jump 2 or 3, start to shift the focus to canopy control/aerodynamics/theory. If the FJC is 8 hours, I don't see any reason that the prep for jump 2 could be a 2 or 3 hour ground school on canopy flight.

Students would know the freefall stuff, have experienced a freefall, and get to freefall on all their subsequent jumps, but the main learning points would occur after opening, not before. It gives the students what they want, a fun freefall, and provides them what they need, knowledge and skills in the area of canopy control.

What would I say to student pilot who wants to do aerobatics? Well, if I had a 150 Aerobat, or some other plane rating for aerobatics that was also suitable for student training, I'd say, 'Great, first get us off the ground and out to the practice area. We'll work on some level turns and slow flight, and then we'll do a couple rolls and a spin just for kicks, and then you have to navigate us back home for a couple of touch and gos, and than a full stop'. There's no reason you can't give the student what they want and what they need at the same time.

The obvious benefit is training the students properly, the secondary benefit is that students right from the start get the impression that canopy control is important, worthwhile, and a 'legitimate' part of skydiving.

I think it's a sound plan, but it's an easy 5 years from happening, and that would only be if the USPA went to work on it tomorow. As it sits, you have to get the idea on the table and then accepted, only then will they start the process of rebuilding the training system.

What do we do now? This is where I come back to my idea of taking existing 'technology' and applying it to the situation. WL charts already exist and are in use all over the world, let's put one together and make it a part of skydiving in the US. Canopy control courses already exist, let's take the sum of all the info presetned, and chop into 4 equal parts, and then use those parts to create 4 seperate canopy control courses and tie them to the licensing system we already have.

My plan requires the 'creation' of almost nothing, just the 'adjusting' of existing concepts, and could be put to use in short order. There's no reason not to implement a basic program like I'm suggesting, while at the same time devloping a more comprehensive revamp of the whole system, but in the end, I think the days of doing nothing are (or should be) long past.

I know I'm a little slow on the uptake, but I finally got around to leafing though the March Parachutist. I found it intertesring to read Ed Scott's 'Gearing Up' where he summarized 2011, and highlighted some of the USPA's accomplishments during that time.

All of the money they made, spent or saved was neat, and good to hear. Any success in keeping DZs on (or from getting on) airports is a benefit to all of us.

These things are useless when comapred to giving some attention to the problem with open canopy incidents:

-Providing an online training resource? DZs should be training students, and the UPSA shouldn't be in the business of providing online training. You want to jump? Go to a DZ and pay them to train you, that's what they're there for.

-Increased media coverage of anything skydiving realted? Again, we have internal problems to deal that should come well before worrying about media coverage. For what it's worth, I can't say I noticed any sort of increase in media presnece.

-Sisters in Skydiving? Come on girls, make your own friends, again, USPA has bigger fish to fry.

The list goes on, and as much as I'd like to shoot down all the other points, I'm just sick of typing. I'll sum it up by saying the rest is bullshit too when compared to dealing with open canopy incidents to some sort of significant degree.

I do have a point in bringing 'Gearing Up' to the conversation, and it's this - Ed does mention that the USPA issued 5,944 licenses last year. Each one of those licensed was an oppotunity lost to make skydiving better overall. If each one of those license had a canopy control course required to go along with it, imagine the increase in the collective knowledge.

He also states that 5.959 new skydivers joined the USPA in 2011, again that's 5,959 chances we missed to bring jumpers into the sport where canopy control has some 'teeth' and is taken serisouly by all involved. If from day one you understand that there are limits as to what you can fly, and that you need continuing education in canopy control to progress in the sport, it makes the impression that it's important and worthwhile. Likewise, when you start jumping and find there is no guidelines or requirements ongoing in that area, it makes the opposite impression.

2011 = 5.959 opposite impressions. Good work Ed.


(This post was edited by davelepka on Mar 23, 2012, 10:36 AM)


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 23, 2012, 11:41 AM
Post #142 of 166 (1043 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Man that's a lot of assumptions to make saying all those people would think the way you are suggesting. Just saying.

Back to canopy. Having a canopy course right at solo status would be awsome. What the other guy is saying sounds a lot like a static line program to me tho I'm not rated in SI. Putting a canopy course In the A card progression should be done ASAP as everyone here knows there is no canopy training worth speaking about in it now.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 23, 2012, 11:55 AM
Post #143 of 166 (1039 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Man that's a lot of assumptions to make saying all those people would think the way you are suggesting.

Have you ever questioned the pull altitude BSR? I don't mean the exact numbers of the BSR, but the idea of a pull altitude BSR in general? I'm guessing no, as it seems like a pretty good and reasonable idea.

Well, you and me both entered skydiving post pull-altitude BSR, and both of us knew from day one that the BSR was in place and that's the way it was. When it was introduced, there were plenty of jumpers who thought it was bullshit, and they didn't need no 'stinkin' BSR.

Just like you and I accepted the BSR, so will new jumpers accept the WL and canopy control course BSR.

Another example, when I learned to jump, AFF was 7 jumps and you were done. You could do anything you wanted on jump 8, solo or otherwise. Once you hit 20 jumps, you could get your A licesne. Now it's a different story, with much more time, money and work involved, but when was the last time you heard a student balk at that? They're told from day one what's involved, and they go along with it.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Mar 23, 2012, 12:51 PM
Post #144 of 166 (1028 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Man that's a lot of assumptions to make saying all those people would think the way you are suggesting. Just saying.

Back to canopy. Having a canopy course right at solo status would be awsome. What the other guy is saying sounds a lot like a static line program to me tho I'm not rated in SI. Putting a canopy course In the A card progression should be done ASAP as everyone here knows there is no canopy training worth speaking about in it now.

Could be S/L, IAD, or hop-and-pops... and guess what? It's already been proof-tested by the US Air Force.

Academy cadets do hop-and-pop freefalls for their first jumps... anywhere from 5-20 last time I checked. Then they go to freefall training.

Dan and Amy Goriesky used to go out to CO every year and train the cadets in AFF-type freefall and they said it was amazing how fast the kids picked up the freefall part after already having 5-20 parachute-only jumps in their logbooks.

Think about it: The hardest part to jumping is getting out of the plane and landing -- and being comfortable with and confident of your gear. That is the foundation upon which you build.

This is absolutely not rocket science and you're already on track -- you just have it out of sequence.

START with the ground school/basic flight course. After successfully graduating from that, then you go into more specialized training along one of two tracks: freefall or parachute. (I deleted wingsuit as a separate track, as it's part of the freefall track.)

Check out the attached rough draft training pyramid of an idea of what I mean.

44
Wink


(This post was edited by robinheid on Mar 23, 2012, 12:53 PM)
Attachments: training chart.pdf (43.6 KB)


voilsb  (D 30581)

Mar 23, 2012, 12:52 PM
Post #145 of 166 (1026 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Putting a canopy course In the A card progression should be done ASAP as everyone here knows there is no canopy training worth speaking about in it now.
This is the only thing I want to reply to right now ... First off, I've only been skydiving for 3 1/2 years. I didn't do the ISP, I did the 7-level AFF single-page A-License card.


In order to get my A License, I had to do front and rear riser turns. I had to do braked turns. I had to do toggle turns, and attempt to induce line twists with radical opposite toggle inputs. I had to spot my own exit from an otter, and give the pilot corrections. I had to do a braked approach and landing eg, flare from brakes, not full flight. In my FJC I was taught how a canopy inflates and stays pressurized, how and where it generates lift, what a stall was, and how various inputs affect lift and induce turns. I had to understand wing loading and how it affected canopy flight and landings, including it's affect on stall speed. I had to know what density altitude was and how it affects canopy flight and stall characteristics.

In other words, I was taught and had to understand and demonstrate 85% of the material I've ever learned from supplementary canopy courses, including Brian Germain's and Scott Miller-type courses. Just to get my A license. And this was all implemented years before I started skydiving.
To say " there is no canopy training worth speaking about in it now" is to say that at least 85% of everything taught in a Flight-1 course is not worth speaking about. And the canopy training has improved since I learned to jump.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 23, 2012, 1:05 PM
Post #146 of 166 (1019 views)
Shortcut
Re: [voilsb] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Thats all fine and dandie. You had great instructors. If you read posts prior to that one I stated that there are 8 canopy tasks on your one page A card. That is all the required training you need in your skydiving career. This year things have changed. That's all I meant. Have a good one.
http://www.uspa.org/...icenseProfandApp.pdf
Edited to add 2 part A card again. What's on there is bare minimum and just gives basic understanding. That's it.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 23, 2012, 1:12 PM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 23, 2012, 8:34 PM
Post #147 of 166 (979 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Edited to add 2 part A card again. What's on there is bare minimum and just gives basic understanding. That's it.
Bingo. And you only have to DO those things once. There's no check other than the integrity of the instructors (and we know how varied that is) to see if you actually learned anything from having done it once.

Guess how few jumps it actually takes to get ALL the canopy work signed off on the 2-page card?


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 23, 2012, 9:23 PM
Post #148 of 166 (975 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Guess how few jumps it actually takes to get ALL the canopy work signed off on the 2-page card?

Technically none. How many instructors will stand there and watch the jumpers actually perform the required skills? The at-altitude skills are almost impossible to watch, and I just don't think that many go out of their way to watch the low altitude stuff.

"Did you do some stalls and flat turns up there?"
"Sure, I did them all"

Even in the case the student is honest about their performance, there's no guidelines for how to teach the manuvers. Simply describing the mechanical motions required is not teaching nearly enough. Jumpers need to understand why the canopy responds to inputs the way it does, and more importantly, how to apply the manuvers in the real world and use them to their advantange.

It's like teaching a kid to parallel park in an empty parking lot without the use of cones or painted lines. You can show them the combination of backing up and cutting the wheel to and fro, and even get them to do it a couple times. However, just becasue they know how to get a car to side-step in reverse doesn't mean they know how to parallel park. You need to set up cones or lines for them to work within so they can accurately park the vehicle, and then take them on the road to try it in a real situation.

Is including this stuff on the proficiency cards progress? Sure it is, however, there's something to be said for developing a complete program all at once, as opposed to introducing things peicemeal and hoping they all fit together in the end. I just can't understand why we can't get any action in this area that matches the magnitude of the problem.

It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight. A very cheap, plastic butter knife to a gunfight.


nigel99  (D 1)

Mar 24, 2012, 2:33 PM
Post #149 of 166 (935 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Edited to add 2 part A card again. What's on there is bare minimum and just gives basic understanding. That's it.
Bingo. And you only have to DO those things once. There's no check other than the integrity of the instructors (and we know how varied that is) to see if you actually learned anything from having done it once.

Guess how few jumps it actually takes to get ALL the canopy work signed off on the 2-page card?

I am pretty sure the minimum for all the requirements is 5 jumps provided you do it right. The elephant in the room is that as you say signoff ethics are dubious. I wonder if anyone posting in this thread has ever "failed" an A accuracy jump and had to redo?

If people would properly adhere to the current requirements it would be a big step forwards. It irritates me that people pay lipservice to the problem, but ignore the guidelines we already have. I've previously mentioned the sim wingloading guidelines, not only is that ignored, but it appears that some AFF instructors don't even know they exist. People are happy to quote the recommendation on cameras, and then ignore recommendations that don't fit their personal agendas.

I must admit I like Robin's approach on more theory and slowing things down. Dave hit the nail on the head, saying people wanted instant gratification, and maybe that is a clue. Don't pandering to the instant gratification crowd (leave them to doing tandems). The sport could do with more discipline.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Mar 26, 2012, 12:31 PM
Post #150 of 166 (834 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

   So after reading parachutist fatality report today. 64% being D jumpers out of all fatalities. Second highest was student who already have wing loading restrictions with 20% and B's followed with 16% A and C were 0. So 84% of the fatalities would not be affected by any canopy restriction changes
These were the groups of all fatalities for the year 2011
6 were landing issues,8 were collisions, 2 no pulls, 5 were not fixing or getting rid of malfunction, 1 a reserve problem
3 were listed as other. 25 in all.
The problem with the report and think should be added is the history of each skydiver( ratings and courses taken) to be able to get a full understanding on whats going on.

So tell me how wing loading charts are going to change things.

All this shit that's going on with canopy's is caused by lack of education. From how to deal with a malfunction. To knowing how to fly a pattern. Having more education on canopy will change things. The real problem is we prob wont see it change for a few years do to all the people out there that don't need to take any courses. Those people will still be a liability for lack of a better word. this is also based on none of these jumpers taken a course already.

edited to add: either way we use education with or without a chart we wont see change for years. Again to many jumpers out there that wont have to take anything or have no restrictions. The only way to see results right away is make everyone at least sit threw a advance canopy course before their next renewal. We can do it like a recall with a car manufacturer. We both no that will never happen.


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Mar 26, 2012, 2:16 PM)


robinheid  (D 5533)

Mar 26, 2012, 2:16 PM
Post #151 of 166 (972 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I must admit I like Robin's approach on more theory and slowing things down. Dave hit the nail on the head, saying people wanted instant gratification, and maybe that is a clue. Don't pandering to the instant gratification crowd (leave them to doing tandems). The sport could do with more discipline.


Thanks for the nod -- and you just hit another nail on the head.

By pandering to the instant gratification crowd, we are populating our sport with people who like to rush into things -- the consequences of which have given rise to this thread and others like it.

I had never thought about it until you brought it up, but in addition to creating more knowledgeable and capable parachute pilots, transitioning to a parachute-only-no-freefall basic course would filter out at least some of the instant gratification crowd and pre-select for people with a propensity for patience and learning a solid theoretical and practical foundation before "jumping" ahead to activities and equipment for which they are not yet prepared.

BTW, I wanted to clarify my response to ozzy13 re S/L, IAD, hop-n-pop jumps for the parachute pilot course.

What I propose is not a return to static line "progression." I think one- and two-jumpmaster freefall training has proven itself to be a safe and effective method for freefall training, and far superior to the "progression" I went through back in the day.

The parachute pilot basic course would use S/L, IAD or hop'n'pop jumps, but when the jumper graduated from the basic course, s/he would then either go to basic freefall training (one or two freefall jumpmasters from 12,500 or wherever), or continue on the "parachute track," during which they would continue to do S/L, IAD or hop'n'pops until they decided to do the basic freefall course.

A quick aside here too: When Roger Nelson went to ZP Sabres for his students, he noticed an immediate improvement in their freefall performance because... the rigs were smaller and thus did not hang over the student torsos and affect their ability to fly their bodies.

That is another advantage of a basic parachute course before freefall; part of the "graduation" requirements would be to downsize to a wing loading reasonable for their weight and experience, probably somewhere in the 0.8 range or thereabouts. That way when they do go to their freefall training, they are jumping gear that doesn't interfere with their freefall maneuvering, thus creating more success, less frustration and greater jumper retention.

44
Cool


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 26, 2012, 3:20 PM
Post #152 of 166 (962 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>So tell me how wing loading charts are going to change things.

By requiring education before progressing to smaller canopies.

Re-read those reports and ask yourself this:

If those jumpers had had more canopy control education, might the fatality have been prevented?

If they refused to get education, and as a result had to jump a larger canopy limit set by a chart, might the fatality have been prevented?


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 26, 2012, 3:32 PM
Post #153 of 166 (959 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So after reading parachutist fatality report today. 64% being D jumpers out of all fatalities

So tell me how wing loading charts are going to change things

As mentioned many times before, those numbers reflect fatalities only. A jumper can be paralyzed in an incident, but it wouldn't appear in any existing statistics. Ditto for less severe injuries.

Furthermore, I would suggest that the majority of 'highly' active jumpers would be D licensed anyway, so that group has a greater exposure to an incident. I would also suggest that D licensed jumpers generally jump faster canopies than other license groups. Additionally, I would think that that among swoopers, the majority of them would be D license holders. The end result is the greatest exposure at the highest levels of risk for D license jumpers. It only stands to reason they would top out the list.

Quote:
either way we use education with or without a chart we wont see change for years. Again to many jumpers out there that wont have to take anything or have no restrictions. The only way to see results right away is make everyone at least sit threw a advance canopy course before their next renewal. We can do it like a recall with a car manufacturer. We both no that will never happen.

I've already 'given up' on the current crop of jumpers. Whatever will happen with them will happen. The sooner we institute some kind of change, the sooner all the new jumpers will move through the system and begin to shift the situation. If it takes 5 years, that's not the end of the world considering that this problem is 10+ years old. Given the scope and longesvity of the situation, it's going to take time to shift the tides.

The thing is, I suggested these same things 7 or 8 years ago. If action had been taken then, we would be well past the couple years it would take to see results and we would be better off. Just because it won't provide an instantanious result doesn't mean it's not worthwhile.

Overall, the two main ideas floating around out there are required continuing education and WL limitations. Both are currently in practice in other countries, with some of them combining the two and utilizing both. The way I see it, neither one of them is going to do any harm, so the only way to make sure we make the right choice (if there is a singular right choice) is to simply choose both, and implement both ideas concurrently.


virgin-burner

Mar 26, 2012, 4:30 PM
Post #154 of 166 (948 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So after reading parachutist fatality report today. 64% being D jumpers out of all fatalities. Second highest was student who already have wing loading restrictions with 20% and B's followed with 16% A and C were 0. So 84% of the fatalities would not be affected by any canopy restriction changes
These were the groups of all fatalities for the year 2011
6 were landing issues,8 were collisions, 2 no pulls, 5 were not fixing or getting rid of malfunction, 1 a reserve problem
3 were listed as other. 25 in all.
The problem with the report and think should be added is the history of each skydiver( ratings and courses taken) to be able to get a full understanding on whats going on.

So tell me how wing loading charts are going to change things.

All this shit that's going on with canopy's is caused by lack of education. From how to deal with a malfunction. To knowing how to fly a pattern. Having more education on canopy will change things. The real problem is we prob wont see it change for a few years do to all the people out there that don't need to take any courses. Those people will still be a liability for lack of a better word. this is also based on none of these jumpers taken a course already.

edited to add: either way we use education with or without a chart we wont see change for years. Again to many jumpers out there that wont have to take anything or have no restrictions. The only way to see results right away is make everyone at least sit threw a advance canopy course before their next renewal. We can do it like a recall with a car manufacturer. We both no that will never happen.

you can beat a dead horse but it still wont get up..

the same posters that usually ignore this fact bring up the same silly arguments over and over again that just dont hold up TO THE FACTS.

and nope, that's no passive aggression, it's an observation.

i havent looked up the numbers, but i would BET that those 64% D-license holders have been in the sport for 5 or even 10yrs at the time. usually the ones that pump out MANY-MANY jumps in a short period of time are also the ones that do look for further education. another argument that doesnt hold up..


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 26, 2012, 4:50 PM
Post #155 of 166 (946 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Yet that is percisely what we do now, and all the blah-blah about the charts simply enables the continuation of this heuristically insane training structure. It's like proposing to put a bandaid on a severed artery and then feeling smug because "we are doing something" about the problem.

I don't think it's that good. It's more like sticking a band aid on the easiest place you can, because you saw blood on the floor.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Mar 26, 2012, 10:17 PM
Post #156 of 166 (922 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Yet that is percisely what we do now, and all the blah-blah about the charts simply enables the continuation of this heuristically insane training structure. It's like proposing to put a bandaid on a severed artery and then feeling smug because "we are doing something" about the problem.

I don't think it's that good. It's more like sticking a band aid on the easiest place you can, because you saw blood on the floor.

I stand corrected.

44
Cool


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 26, 2012, 11:21 PM
Post #157 of 166 (918 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So tell me how wing loading charts are going to change things.
Again? It's for the children!
For the students, you're right. They generally are being put on canopy sizes commensurate with their abilities. The chart is, IMO, mainly for the experienced bozos who will disregard recommendations and try to out-fly their ass.

In reply to:
All this shit that's going on with canopy's is caused by lack of education.
Ummmm, yes and no, IMO. I do see that we somewhat agree on this but just to make myself feel better if nothing else, I'll add:
Not because of lack of education opportunities. You make your own opportunities and take advantage of the ones that come your way.

The real problem is that people DON'T do that. Plain and simple. And therein is what is really meant by "lack of education."

Education is a great thing..but it's only useful if you take advantage of it.


In reply to:
The only way to see results right away is make everyone at least sit threw a advance canopy course before their next renewal. We can do it like a recall with a car manufacturer. We both no that will never happen.
Even then I wouldn't expect much in the way of positive results. Making someone sit through a class is not going to ensure that they will actually DO and PRACTICE what they we told about....and especially not on a daily basis.

Sadly, education is no panacea. There just are none.
Unsure


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Mar 26, 2012, 11:22 PM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 31, 2012, 5:18 PM
Post #158 of 166 (865 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Funny how so so many of those pushing education so hard are also rebelling against teaching the youngsters what's already in the SIM. Not only CC but other, even more basic things, too.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Apr 2, 2012, 2:22 PM
Post #159 of 166 (824 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Funny how so so many of those pushing education so hard are also rebelling against teaching the youngsters what's already in the SIM. Not only CC but other, even more basic things, too.

You lost me there. Egg samples, please.

44
Cool


hokierower  (B 36150)

Apr 4, 2012, 7:19 AM
Post #160 of 166 (775 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm going to be a bit selfish here, but this has been brought up by other posters...

I'm at 143 jumps and of the last 25 jumps I've made, 21 have been hop & pops dedicated to working on canopy skills (checkpoints v. straight line pattern, landing from half-braked approach, lots of practice up high, etc.) and HP landings (front 90 and double fronts to front 90). I've already taken one 3-day canopy course, have a 2-day canopy course set up in July, and will take a third in the fall. I made a mental decision to focus completely on canopy piloting (and forego freefall) because that is what I enjoy, even at such a "young age" and it's the discipline that I want to pursue.

With that bit of background given, how would this WL proposition affect someone like me, someone who gets out either alone or with another 1 or 2 people separate from the rest of the load? Someone whose sole purpose on that jump is to fly their canopy, not just see it as a necessary evil to get back to freefall. Would I be limited to the same rules as someone who has never taken a canopy course and their last H&P was on a day where clouds prevented full altitude or possibly even AFF? According to the solution that's been mentioned, I have to ask the BOD or Executive Committee for a waiver, people who may have NEVER seen me jump!

My $0.02

Why not add to the ISP two high pulls where a student exits with a coach and goes through all of the drills required to receive an A-license? Add another two hop & pops to deal with the landing portion (landing from half-brakes and flat/front riser turns. Hell, if you don't want to add to the ISP, replace some of the freefall coached jumps with canopy coached jumps.

Seems like a better way of dealing with the education "scope gap" than trying to limit people who aren't required to get any more education.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Apr 4, 2012, 7:40 AM
Post #161 of 166 (765 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hokierower] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I'm at 143 jumps and of the last 25 jumps I've made, 21 have been hop & pops dedicated to working on canopy skills (checkpoints v. straight line pattern, landing from half-braked approach, lots of practice up high, etc.) and HP landings (front 90 and double fronts to front 90).

How many landings did you work into those 25 jumps?

Quote:
I've already taken one 3-day canopy course, have a 2-day canopy course set up in July, and will take a third in the fall. I made a mental decision to focus completely on canopy piloting (and forego freefall) because that is what I enjoy, even at such a "young age" and it's the discipline that I want to pursue

I admire your dedication, but how does this increase the number of landings you get to make per jump?

At the end of the day, you're still at a 1 to 1 ratio of jumps to landings, and landings are where the injuries are occuring.

All of your 'practice' up high may be fun an enjoyable, but it's all just 'shooting blanks'. Without the hard reference point of mother earth, you can't be sure that your actions are correct the level of percision required for landing.

Take flat turns, if you're not actually 'flat' you're not going to preserve the landing. If your flat turn is really descending, you hit the ground anyway. If your flat turn is ascending, you're going to balloon up and leave yourself high and without airspeed, which leads to a surge into the ground.

I am suggesting you don't practice? No. Practice will help, but actual landings will teach you what you need to know. Look at it this way, if all you do are hop n pops, you can make more jumps in less time for less money, and you could work through the WL progression faster than others, but aside from that, you're not special.

Regardless of what you want, what you like to do, or what your intentions are, you still have 143 jumps and 143 landings. To think that you are more advanced than anyone else at your level is exactly what got us where we are today. People overestimating their abilities, and rushing into siutaions they're not ready for.

Want to know if your're ready to jump a 150? It's easy, make 100 successful jumps on a 170 and prove you can handle that canopy over a period of time and a variety of jumps and conditions. There is no other way.

Everyone needs to take the time to work their way down in canopy size, there are no exceptions. Anything short of that it taking a chance that a jumper won't end up being 'OK' on a certain canopy, and then that jumpers suffers an incident because of it.

It's hard to see it now from your end, but it's a road worth travelling at the right speed. I'm sue at 150 jumps, the idea of slowly downsizing through 400 or 500 more jumps seems like a lifetime away, but it's really not. Just a few years of hard jumping will get you there, with the flip side being making a mistake and pushing too hard too early, and you never get there.


hokierower  (B 36150)

Apr 4, 2012, 8:17 AM
Post #162 of 166 (759 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How many landings did you work into those 25 jumps?

25...but if you know of someway to get more landings per jumps (not including bouncing), please let me know.

I admire your dedication, but how does this increase the number of landings you get to make per jump?

Pretty sure one of the big things going back forth in this thread is training v. just trying to figure things out. That's what that statement referred to.

At the end of the day, you're still at a 1 to 1 ratio of jumps to landings, and landings are where the injuries are occuring.

All of your 'practice' up high may be fun an enjoyable, but it's all just 'shooting blanks'. Without the hard reference point of mother earth, you can't be sure that your actions are correct the level of percision required for landing.

Wierd, because the altitude loss reported by my N3 is pretty damn accurate.

Take flat turns, if you're not actually 'flat' you're not going to preserve the landing. If your flat turn is really descending, you hit the ground anyway. If your flat turn is ascending, you're going to balloon up and leave yourself high and without airspeed, which leads to a surge into the ground.

I am suggesting you don't practice? No. Practice will help, but actual landings will teach you what you need to know. Look at it this way, if all you do are hop n pops, you can make more jumps in less time for less money, and you could work through the WL progression faster than others, but aside from that, you're not special.

Regardless of what you want, what you like to do, or what your intentions are, you still have 143 jumps and 143 landings. To think that you are more advanced than anyone else at your level is exactly what got us where we are today. People overestimating their abilities, and rushing into siutaions they're not ready for.

Who said anything about rushing? I certainly didn't.

Want to know if your're ready to jump a 150? It's easy, make 100 successful jumps on a 170 and prove you can handle that canopy over a period of time and a variety of jumps and conditions. There is no other way.

That's the plan skippy.

Everyone needs to take the time to work their way down in canopy size, there are no exceptions. Anything short of that it taking a chance that a jumper won't end up being 'OK' on a certain canopy, and then that jumpers suffers an incident because of it.

It's hard to see it now from your end, but it's a road worth travelling at the right speed. I'm sue at 150 jumps, the idea of slowly downsizing through 400 or 500 more jumps seems like a lifetime away, but it's really not. Just a few years of hard jumping will get you there, with the flip side being making a mistake and pushing too hard too early, and you never get there.

All valid points, but how do you work currency into that equation? I'm looking to hit 200 jumps by end of May, which is 200 in a year. Based upon your earlier statement, I have no more knowledge, no more skill, and am no more "advanced" than a jumper with 200 jumps, but who took 2-3 years to get there and may not have taken a canopy course...that doesn't make much sense.


(This post was edited by hokierower on Apr 4, 2012, 8:24 AM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Apr 4, 2012, 8:35 AM
Post #163 of 166 (751 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hokierower] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
All valid points, but how do you work currency into that equation? I'm looking to hit 200 jumps by end of May, which is 200 in a year. Based upon your earlier statement, I have no more knowledge, no more skill, and am no more "advanced" than a jumper with 200 jumps, but who took 2-3 years to get there and may not have taken a canopy course...that doesn't make much sense.

That's where education has to work into any one of these plans. Everyone should be taking continuing canopy control courses as their jump numbers increase.

I'll make a suggestion, and some will disagree, but these are my thoguhts- If you make 200 jumps in a year and take 2 canopy control courses because all you want to do is fly canopies, and another jumper makes 200 jumps in 3 years with no canopy control courses and no inclination to do any sort of 'canopy piloting', I would be less concerned about the other guy, and here's why -

You have it set in your mind that you want to do certain things with canopies, and that leads you to try different things. You take canopy control courses, do hop n pops and run canopy drills up high, and you begin to think of yourself as more of a canopy pilot than your 200 jumps would indicate.

The other guy is just looking to land and do another 4-way or freefly, He's not going to 'try' much of anything.

Indeed there are exceptions to all of these 'rules', but I have seen it many times over, where a new jumper makes a choice as to what they want to be, and immediately take up the habits and styles of those types of jumpers. Acting, dressing and ultimately tyring to fly like the people they want to be, not neccesarily the people they are at the time. In some cases, like RW, it's harmless as there's no pentaly to trying and failing to turn points. In the case of swooping, there are significant penalites for trying and failing.

Despite all of your efforts, you're still a guy with 150 or 200 jumps, and for you to conduct yourself anyway outside of what would be considered 'average' for a guy with 150 or 200 jumps is asking for trouble.


hokierower  (B 36150)

Apr 4, 2012, 10:23 AM
Post #164 of 166 (733 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
That's where education has to work into any one of these plans. Everyone should be taking continuing canopy control courses as their jump numbers increase.

I'll make a suggestion, and some will disagree, but these are my thoguhts- If you make 200 jumps in a year and take 2 canopy control courses because all you want to do is fly canopies, and another jumper makes 200 jumps in 3 years with no canopy control courses and no inclination to do any sort of 'canopy piloting', I would be less concerned about the other guy, and here's why -

You have it set in your mind that you want to do certain things with canopies, and that leads you to try different things. You take canopy control courses, do hop n pops and run canopy drills up high, and you begin to think of yourself as more of a canopy pilot than your 200 jumps would indicate.

The other guy is just looking to land and do another 4-way or freefly, He's not going to 'try' much of anything.


Indeed there are exceptions to all of these 'rules', but I have seen it many times over, where a new jumper makes a choice as to what they want to be, and immediately take up the habits and styles of those types of jumpers. Acting, dressing and ultimately tyring to fly like the people they want to be, not neccesarily the people they are at the time. In some cases, like RW, it's harmless as there's no pentaly to trying and failing to turn points. In the case of swooping, there are significant penalites for trying and failing.

Despite all of your efforts, you're still a guy with 150 or 200 jumps, and for you to conduct yourself anyway outside of what would be considered 'average' for a guy with 150 or 200 jumps is asking for trouble.

Fair enough and makes perfect sense to me. The only thing that I can say is that I plan to progress in a reasonable and sensible manner using the guidance that I receive from canopy coaches.

Any thoughts on the suggestions I made to the ISP?


(This post was edited by hokierower on Apr 4, 2012, 10:57 AM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Apr 5, 2012, 5:54 AM
Post #165 of 166 (701 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Funny how so so many of those pushing education so hard are also rebelling against teaching the youngsters what's already in the SIM. Not only CC but other, even more basic things, too.

You lost me there. Egg samples, please.

44
Cool
A couple of relevant threads come to mind...
Using the 45 degree rule
Ignoring Spotting and exit separation calculations
Re-inventing emergency procedures


robinheid  (D 5533)

Apr 6, 2012, 11:40 AM
Post #166 of 166 (659 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Proposal for wing loading limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Funny how so so many of those pushing education so hard are also rebelling against teaching the youngsters what's already in the SIM. Not only CC but other, even more basic things, too.

You lost me there. Egg samples, please.

44
Cool
A couple of relevant threads come to mind...
Using the 45 degree rule
Ignoring Spotting and exit separation calculations
Re-inventing emergency procedures

Okay, thanks. Concur.

Too many things have become customary that make jumpers less independent and autonomous... it's like, why spot when the pilot does it and all I have to do is go when the light turns green?

There was a briefly notorious case in Perris some years ago where Skip evans was flying the Otter one day (instead of his customary DC-3) and when he turned on jump run, he turned on the green light instead of the red one because, in his DC-3 the procedure was "green light means jump run. Spot and go when it's time."

So when the green light went on, everyone on the plane just ran out the door -- two or three miles from the drop zone! The worst part was, they were all mad at Skip; it never occurred to any of these 20+ skygods to look before they leaped.

And FYI, I don't oppose recommended wing loading charts and would even suggest that making those charts part of the ground school I've proposed would be a very good thing.

The sooner we get people educated about everything that they're doing and the gear they're jumping, the more likely it is that they will start thinking about all the elements that go into parachuting rather than just drooling and running out the door like Pavlov's dog when a green light goes on.

I just think creating a regulatory hierarchy where people are forced to comply with a boatload of new wing loading rules and standards, etc etc, that can never even fractionally account for all the variables attendant thereto, is a really stupid way to deal with the situation.

44
Cool



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)