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

 

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

davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 22, 2012, 3:25 AM
Post #126 of 166 (1126 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 (1105 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 (1095 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 (1088 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 (1074 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 (1067 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 (1064 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 (1055 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 (1044 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 (1016 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 (1010 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 (1001 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 (976 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 (972 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 (941 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 (931 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 (916 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 (912 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 (901 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 (899 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 (892 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 (852 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 (848 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 (808 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 (707 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)


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

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)