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

robinheid  (D 5533)

Mar 26, 2012, 2:16 PM
Post #151 of 166 (860 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 (850 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 (847 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 (836 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 (834 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 (810 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 (806 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 (753 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 (712 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 (663 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 (653 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 (647 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 (639 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 (621 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 (589 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 (547 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


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)