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

Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 13, 2012, 1:07 PM
Post #1 of 166 (2947 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 (2891 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 (2883 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 (2876 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 (2866 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 (2864 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 (2856 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 (2844 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 (2830 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 (2797 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 (2793 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 (2790 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 (2770 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 (2761 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 (2758 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 (2756 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 (2743 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 (2734 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 (2726 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 (2722 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 (2714 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 (2712 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 (2709 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 (2704 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 (2703 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?


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)