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

joephus  (C 41172)

Mar 14, 2012, 1:25 PM
Post #51 of 166 (1054 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 (1046 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 (1041 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 (1031 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 (1020 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 (1017 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 (1003 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 (988 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 (987 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 (978 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 (974 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 (971 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 (965 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 (958 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 (952 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 (948 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 (935 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 (922 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 (915 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 (913 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 (904 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 (880 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 (851 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 (841 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 (836 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.


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)