Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Wingload BSR.

 


Ron

May 28, 2003, 6:14 AM
Post #1 of 493 (5743 views)
Shortcut
Wingload BSR. Can't Post

I have sent this to the USPA.
I think it is needed. I am behind it.
I will now duck and cover as the flame war starts.

Quote:
I have noticed for sometime a trend of low timers getting hurt or killed
under highly loaded parachutes.

Since 01/01/02 to present 12 out of the 39 fatalities were people under
good canopies. 30%

Out of these 2 were possible turbulence.

Three were panic turns to avoid an object.

The largest segment of landing problems (seven) were people attempting
turns to landing. 17.9% of the total fatalities for this time.

Of these only one had over 500 jumps.

Wing loads were between 1.3 and 1.7 to one.

GA. 275 jumps 1.6 wing load
TX. 270 jumps 1.6 wing load
TX. 200 jumps 1.7 wing load
IL. 1500 jumps ? wing load
CT. 500 jumps ? wing load
IL. 170 jumps 1.4 wing load
NY. 160 jumps 1.3 wing load.

Almost all of these jumpers were jumping a wing load that would be
considered aggressive. And most would agree that the wing loads were
above the skill level of most of the jumpers.

I propose that the USPA do something about this. While education would
be the best answer, the scope of this and the needed curriculum would
prove to be a gigantic task.

Several other organizations have enacted regulations, and I think it is
time that the USPA does the same.

Brian Germain a very well know canopy pilot and designer has a basic
outline that would be very easy to write, follow, and enforce.

Wing loading should correspond to jump # up to 500 jumps.
100 jumps Max 1.1 Wing load
200 jumps Max 1.2 Wing load
300 jumps Max 1.3 Wing load
400 jumps Max 1.4 Wing load
500 jumps Max 1.5 Wing load

This would hopefully delay these young jumpers from getting a canopy
over their
heads before the have the knowledge and experience to handle it.

It would also fit right into the new license structure. At 500 jumps
and a "D" License a jumper can jump a wing load that they feel
comfertable with.

While they are under this protective blanket they could use the
available resources to learn more about canopy flight and if they wish
attend some of the canopy schools available.

Skydiving is a sport that has dangers....One of the jobs of the USPA is
to enact BSR's to protect the population from their own bad choices.
This is why we have minumun pull altitudes. I think it is time we have
maximum wing loadings for less experienced jumpers. This will give them
the time to learn how to handle the added dangers of highly loaded
canopies.

Ron Hill
D17112
PRO
S/L I
Tandem I


towerrat  (D 28189)

May 28, 2003, 6:17 AM
Post #2 of 493 (5693 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

ahhhhhh!!!!!!! you're killin me!


Zenister  (A 42)

May 28, 2003, 6:23 AM
Post #3 of 493 (5684 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

well we've already had this discussion so i'll just say i'll be sure to talk to my regional directors about implementing training programs that would actually make a difference in overall safety vs simply increasing the jump numbers of the next divot to hook in under a canopy they still havent learned how to fly.


diverdriver  (D 19012)

May 28, 2003, 6:33 AM
Post #4 of 493 (5668 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

While you may not get this passed your efforts are in the right direction. People should be made aware about wing loading and training. The side effect of your efforts might be to increase thinking to avoid regulation.


Ron

May 28, 2003, 6:33 AM
Post #5 of 493 (5668 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Feel free to come up with an inclusive training plan to submit as well.

Ron


Zenister  (A 42)

May 28, 2003, 6:36 AM
Post #6 of 493 (5663 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

make sure your plan also includes some measure to ensure its enforced, say every time a jumper boards an aircraft after lunch? mandatory canopy size labels on the outsides of gear?


Ron

May 28, 2003, 6:38 AM
Post #7 of 493 (5660 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

You are the reason that we still have people under things they cant handle...

You will not do anything but try and stop people from trying to help by being negative...

you have never said one thing to help the problem, only cause problems.

I am not getting into this with you.


Zenister  (A 42)

May 28, 2003, 6:40 AM
Post #8 of 493 (5655 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

nice flame

I know how to fly the canopies i do because i got good instruction.

your plan puts a band aid on a broken leg, all so you can say you gave medical aid.

people are under wings they cant handle because they arent being taught how to fly them. wingloading restrictions will do nothing to solve that.


(This post was edited by Zenister on May 28, 2003, 6:43 AM)


ladyskydiver

May 28, 2003, 6:46 AM
Post #9 of 493 (5649 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Ron,

I appreciate the fact that people want to prevent injuries, but I think having mandatory canopy control class would have a better result than mandating wing loading.

Since we already have our student training program, why not add to it a canopy control class that you need to get signed off in order to get whatever canopy you'd like - which would include demoing the canopy you'd like to get and showing that you are capable of handling it. Due to USPA, we now have to have a coach through our first 20 jumps - why not add the canopy control into the 20 jump requirement? And, if the person giving the canopy control class says you're not capable of handling the canopy, you can't get that one.

FYI - Scott Miller (PD) gave an excellent canopy control class that I took and learned a lot from. I'm in no hurry to downsize as I have a ton that I can learn on my current canopy and am a conservative jumper.


Ron

May 28, 2003, 6:48 AM
Post #10 of 493 (5642 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ladyskydiver] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Too much work...the uspa will not do it.

And then the courses have to meet a standard...
Someone has to regulate that standard....
Materials have to be created....
And hell not everyoine is following the new student program anyway.

Ron


RozeAY  (D License)

May 28, 2003, 7:08 AM
Post #11 of 493 (5615 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ladyskydiver] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Due to USPA, we now have to have a coach through our first 20 jumps - why not add the canopy control into the 20 jump requirement?

According to the SIM, the dive flows for these category jumps do have canopy control sections. As do the regular AFF categories. Its just that most instructors do not teach this part or have their students do it. So its there, you just have to get people to start using it.


nicknitro71  (D 26704)

May 28, 2003, 7:11 AM
Post #12 of 493 (5613 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Probably more than half of us including me are already braking the "law" according to your chart.

Education, knowledge, and a bit of common sense go a long way...


mikkey  (D License)

May 28, 2003, 7:16 AM
Post #13 of 493 (5599 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Well, a lot of countries have wing loading regulations. It would be interesting to study landing accident "rates" per 1000 jumps and see if those countries have a better record then the US. Doubtful if you could get those stats.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

May 28, 2003, 7:29 AM
Post #14 of 493 (5586 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nicknitro71] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Education, knowledge, and a bit of common sense go a long way...
Don't forget luck.

Nice job Ron. It may help if others sent letters expressing the same concerns. Mine will go off this week.

I would like to see a training requirement also though. Perhaps advanced canopy control training should be required at B license level. Training syllabuses are already in place at various schools. I doubt it would be that difficult to adapt them to a standard.

The hard part will be making it available everywhere.


R00tj00se  (C 100697)

May 28, 2003, 8:30 AM
Post #15 of 493 (5544 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
people are under wings they cant handle because they arent being taught how to fly them

Maybe you didn't mean it to come out that way but it sounds like if I don't know how to fly my canopy I should blame it on the fact that I haven't been taught how. In reality, it is up to you to determine if you need coaching and if you do it is up to you to go find it. It is also up to you to decide if your canopy is too hot to handle. Like I said, maybe I'm mis-reading the sentence.

As for Ron's stats in the initial post. Some of those wingloads vs jump numbers are ridiculous - I don't care how much skill you think you have, at 150 - 400 jumps you are still learning the simple things.

What do I think is the answer:
(i) People should stop being idiots with oversized ego's who think they can never get hurt.

As this isn't going to happen then:

(ii) Education backed up by proficiency certification. This would take balls and a lot of work to implement though.

Disclaimer;
I am an 'armchair general' so any opinion presented by me will not be backed up by positive action. Wink


Zenister  (A 42)

May 28, 2003, 8:36 AM
Post #16 of 493 (5539 views)
Shortcut
Re: [R00tj00se] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

no thats exactly what i meant..

no one should really decide what you can or cannot handle but you..

and when the ego driven fools pound in, they should serve as an example to others who wish to remain in the gene pool and be able to jump again tomorrow.

But..there should be an easy route to get the education and training you need if you wish to find out where the edge of the envelope is...not a simple numbers based regulation that only really says "well after this your on your own"


superstu  (D License)

May 28, 2003, 8:51 AM
Post #17 of 493 (5526 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ladyskydiver] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Exactly what i was thinking.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 28, 2003, 9:20 AM
Post #18 of 493 (5511 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>make sure your plan also includes some measure to ensure its
> enforced, say every time a jumper boards an aircraft after lunch?
> mandatory canopy size labels on the outsides of gear?

Right! Just like we have mandatory recording computers to enforce the rule against pulling below 2000 feet. Because god knows there's no other way to do that - if we didn't have those computers people would be pulling at 500 feet all the time, and no one would know!

(sarcasm off)

Seriously, most people can see what wing loading you're jumping. After all, parachutes are pretty visible things.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 28, 2003, 9:30 AM
Post #19 of 493 (5503 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

> . . . would actually make a difference in overall safety

Keeping people on larger canopies for longer will reduce fatalities from low turns. You can take a course and learn how to fly your canopy, or you can learn from experience. The more experience you have the more likely you are to survive. If you learn about how not to turn low by turning low under a 1.1 Spectre you will likely survive the experience - if you learn about it under a 2 to 1 Stiletto you will probably not survive.

> . . simply increasing the jump numbers of the next divot to hook
>in under a canopy they still havent learned how to fly.

See above. I've never taken a canopy control class; now I teach people how to land their new semi-elliptical canopies. It takes a lot longer to learn that way though. I had over 1000 jumps before I jumped my first 1.5 to 1 elliptical, over 2000 before I jumped my first 2:1. I went through that progression so that the mistakes I made along the way (and I did make mistakes) did not kill me - although one such mistake put me in a wheelchair for a month.

That being said, I would also be fine with a way to "opt out" of the above restrictions by going through a canopy control course. That way the option is yours.


evilivan  (D 100593)

May 28, 2003, 9:59 AM
Post #20 of 493 (5481 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Too much work...the uspa will not do it.

Seems to me that the issue is serious enough - its killing people after all - for it to be in the USPA's interest to spend the time to produce a training strategy. The highly loaded elliptical is not going to go away, and I know several people with many more then 500 jumps not capable of flying their choice of canopy.


Premier SkymonkeyONE  (D 12501)

May 28, 2003, 10:01 AM
Post #21 of 493 (5477 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RozeAY] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
According to the SIM, the dive flows for these category jumps do have canopy control sections. As do the regular AFF categories. Its just that most instructors do not teach this part or have their students do it. So its there, you just have to get people to start using it.

You hit the nail on the head. There most certainly IS a system in place at dropzones which teach the USPA ISP program. We do it here, to the letter, because it trains students how to best avoid injury: practical application of use of all flight surfaces at altitude prior to landing. It's not perfect, but it's MUCH better than what is typically taught at dropzones that teach "old" AFF, SL, IAD, or whatever tandem hybrid that some DZ's use. If your dropzone. does not include at least that level of canopy instruction in it's regular, included-in-the-cost training, then the only people you have to blame is your school manager, DZO, or S&TA. Ron is correct in stating that something needs to be done. I don't think a new BSR is the answer. I think the answer is to stop bullshitting and start teaching decent, ISP-based programs. Stop spitting seven-level AFF graduates out of your schools telling them are free to go out and jump anywhere; they cannot.

Chuck Blue
D-12501
Manager, Raeford Parachute Center School
S&TA, PRO, AFF/SL/TM/BM Instructor, PST professional


samp76  (A 43239)

May 28, 2003, 10:03 AM
Post #22 of 493 (5475 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Good point Bill.

In reply to:
Quote:
That being said, I would also be fine with a way to "opt out" of the above restrictions by going through a canopy control course. That way the option is yours.

Now this is starting to make sense. If you pass the course then you don't have a restriction. But I also think once you get a D license your at a skill level to make your own choice about wingloading.

-Sam-


d604  (D 604)

May 28, 2003, 10:14 AM
Post #23 of 493 (5459 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

I’m curious what other organizations (countries) have this type of regulation? It would help in this discussion to see what other countries are doing.

Sean


Zenister  (A 42)

May 28, 2003, 10:23 AM
Post #24 of 493 (5449 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Seriously, most people can see what wing loading you're jumping. After all, parachutes are pretty visible things.

so you can look at someone and tell if they are loading at 1.2 vs 1.3 or 1.4??
[joke]do you guess weights at the state fair for extra cash?[/joke]

sure its easy with tiny canopies and/or very large people, but if the ST&A's,DZO's and instructors cant be trusted now to evaluate the people around them and ground those who are obviously 'at risk' because of poor canopy control skills, what make you think they are more likely to tell some one "you cant jump that because the BSR says so..."

and how do you decide? scales outside of the loading area? so if i lose 5 pound this week i'm ok, but a big BBQ dinner the night before and i cant fly??


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

May 28, 2003, 10:32 AM
Post #25 of 493 (5437 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
That being said, I would also be fine with a way to "opt out" of the above restrictions by going through a canopy control course. That way the option is yours.

I agree with this. In the absence of a formal canopy control course (there are places where they aren't commonly offered), some sort of formal observation by an ASO or someone might be possible. But it might just encourage more canopy courses if that were the requirement.

Since our D license is lower than other countries', I'd probably lift the "no restrictions" level to the generally-accepted international D/expert level; 500 jumps. By that time nearly everyone has had an opportunity to make or avoid most of the major mistakes, and have some understanding of how hard it is to learn some of them.

Wendy W.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 28, 2003, 10:35 AM
Post #26 of 493 (1974 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>so you can look at someone and tell if they are loading at 1.2 vs 1.3 or 1.4??

I can tell the difference between 1.0 and 1.4. If I were suspicious I could look at their canopy (the number's right there) and then look at their waiver.

>but if the ST&A's,DZO's and instructors cant be trusted now to
> evaluate the people around them and ground those who are
> obviously 'at risk' because of poor canopy control skills, what make
> you think they are more likely to tell some one "you cant jump that
> because the BSR says so..."

Because you can't evaluate whether or not someone at 50 jumps can safely jump a 2:1 stiletto without letting them jump it - and if they do jump it, and they survive the landing, there will be a fight. Every single time. I've had such fights.

With a weight based system you can ask them what canopy they are jumping and see how much they weigh.

>scales outside of the loading area?

Hmm. Every DZ I've ever been at has a scale to see if tandem students meet the weight limits.

>so if i lose 5 pound this week
>i'm ok, but a big BBQ dinner the night before and i cant fly??

You could ask the same question about pull altitudes. "What, if I pull at 1999 feet I get grounded?" No - most people have more common sense than that, and if you gain weight such that you're loading your canopy at 1.21 to 1, that's probably OK. If you lay off for the winter then come back 20 pounds overweight (and uncurrent) then yes, it could be an issue.


skytash  (D 100388)

May 28, 2003, 10:41 AM
Post #27 of 493 (1966 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

First I want to congratulate Ron on actually writing to his country's association and acting on what he thinks rather than just whining about an issue and that it is being overlooked.

I do have a concern with this proposed BSR, jump numbers do not imply knowledge. You run the risk that people will downsize on jump numbers 201, 301 etc when they have not necessarily got the skills to do so, just the permission.

[sarcasm]According to statistics presented at a BPA AGM a few years ago, the people most at risk of landing injuries are female first jumpers who are overweight and over forty and male experienced jumpers with between 200 and 500 jumps (fear and testosterone/ego respectively being considered as possibly causes for this pattern ) - perhaps we should just not permit those categories to jump at all or only on REALLY big canopies [/sarcasm]

Having looked at the USPA student training programme, I was impressed that it includes canopy control elements. Coaching this skill as well as freefall skills is the way forward. The associations should spend more time on the canopy control issue and by raising the issue with the people who may be able to do something about it you are doing better than those who just complain about the canopy control issue in forums like this one.

tash


Jessica  (B 25202)

May 28, 2003, 10:46 AM
Post #28 of 493 (1955 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

What about higher-performance canopies? Is a Stiletto at 1.1 safer than a Spectre at 1.2?


Ron

May 28, 2003, 10:47 AM
Post #29 of 493 (1951 views)
Shortcut
Re: [d604] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

The Dutch have regulations.
Swedish
Norway
I think Austraila as well.

Any body know more info or of others?

Ron


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 28, 2003, 10:48 AM
Post #30 of 493 (1949 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skytash] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

> do have a concern with this proposed BSR, jump numbers do not
> imply knowledge. You run the risk that people will downsize on jump
> numbers 201, 301 etc when they have not necessarily got the skills
> to do so, just the permission.

I agree 100%. This will not get them the knowledge they need to fly the canopies well; it will just help keep them alive until they _do_ learn how to fly them. Someone with 300 jumps may not have the skill to fly a 1.3 to 1 canopy, but they are far more likely to survive under that canopy than under a 2 to 1 canopy (which is what's happening now.)

>perhaps we should just not permit those categories to jump at all
>or only on REALLY big canopies . . .

We sort of do that now. Uncurrent people run a much higher risk, and many places require them to make a student jump under a large canopy if they return to the sport after a long break (if they have low jump numbers.) No, no DZ will ever place restrictions on sex or age or race or religion because those topics are too politically charged.


fundgh  (C 34140)

May 28, 2003, 10:51 AM
Post #31 of 493 (1944 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Now I need to know more info. Are there recommended canopoy styles, designs, materials that should go along with size? What canopy should I be flying at 60 jumps - Sabre, Spectre, Saphire, Sabre 2? I am concerned and thinking about upsizing? I don't know that the instructors I had for AFF gave me the complete low-down on what I should be flying.


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

May 28, 2003, 10:55 AM
Post #32 of 493 (1932 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Jessica] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

I'd say if we try to get too specific we'll get a whole lot more folks trying to break the rules for breaking the rules' sake than if we treat it like the minimum opening altitudes. There aren't different altitudes for slower vs. faster-opening canopies, right?

We treat it as a survival skill, assume most people will treat it like that. Some won't, and there are folks who like to take it low, too.

Wendy W.


Jessica  (B 25202)

May 28, 2003, 11:14 AM
Post #33 of 493 (1919 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Someone with 300 jumps may not have the skill to fly a 1.3 to 1 canopy, but they are far more likely to survive under that canopy than under a 2 to 1 canopy (which is what's happening now.)

Also, maybe people would spend more time under a lower-wingloaded canopy instead of downsizing when they hit 201, 301, etc., since selling and buying canopies is expensive and time-consuming.

Right now, people buy canopies that they plan to "grow into" so they won't "get bored." Maybe this would encourage people to actually spend some time learning how to fly.

You know, my kneejerk reaction is that I support this. I'll think on it.


Jessica  (B 25202)

May 28, 2003, 11:21 AM
Post #34 of 493 (1913 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

A logistics question -- would people who already are skydivers get exempted? Or would this force half the skydivers out there to sell their gear?

If that's the case, I don't think this would ever fly.

However, I do think that it could be implemented for new jumpers. Sorta like in 2000, I only had to make seven jumps to graduate AFF and be able to do whatever I wanted, but then the ISP was introduced and you gotta have an A license to even do RW with a non-rating holder. (Under USPA rules, anyway.)


diverdriver  (D 19012)

May 28, 2003, 11:34 AM
Post #35 of 493 (1905 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
That being said, I would also be fine with a way to "opt out" of the above restrictions by going through a canopy control course. That way the option is yours.

Graduated drivers ed. Sounds like a good idea.

Folks, we don't have to re-invent the wheel. Just look at what goes on with airplanes. In order to fly a certain aircraft you have to go through a supervised check out. What's wrong with that idea here in skydiving? Does it infringe on your freedom? Too bad. Your freedom doesn't give you the right to make me scoop your dead body up off the ground to try and give you CPR with blood spurting out.

Education is the key. But since the current group of instructors accross this country do not seem on whole to want to follow the USPA ISP and actually teach canopy control there has to be action in some other manor. I don't disagree with Ron's idea of canopy wing loading restrictions. I think it would be a hard sell and tougher to enforce. But then again, anything worth doing is never easy. It's always hard.

I like Bill's idea of "opt out" by performing to a designated examiner. <gasp> oh my word! Did you know they have designated examiners for Jump Masters too!??? I guess it's not a stretch to set up a system where it would be easy to verify instruction along a designated canopy training course with student training. We just have to make USPA enforce the canopy training part of the ISP. So, we are back to self regulating. And that is what Ron is trying to do. We can choose to have a self regulation in order to recognize that the canopies of today are not the canopies of yesterday. Things do have to change. This is one way in which it could change.

My pilot certificate says ATP (airline transport pilot); type rated: CL-65 (Canadair Regional Jet). I also have single engine and multi-engine commercial privileges. Oh my word! You mean it's a Privilege to be in the air? I guess that means I have a due care to be smart while in the air huh?

Those who can't show maturity with a privilege will have it stripped from them.

That's all I have to say about that now.


SkyDekker

May 28, 2003, 11:36 AM
Post #36 of 493 (1886 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Jessica] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
A logistics question -- would people who already are skydivers get exempted? Or would this force half the skydivers out there to sell their gear?

Usually in situations like this, the experienced jumpers will be "grandfathered". This means they are allowed to jump their current configuration. In all likelihood there would be a stipulation that when you change your main, you have to follow the regulations.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 28, 2003, 11:46 AM
Post #37 of 493 (1878 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fundgh] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>Are there recommended canopoy styles, designs, materials that
>should go along with size?

Yep. First off I'd stick to ZP - they are not inherently harder to fly than F111, and will last longer. On ZP canopies, the 'forgiveness' factor ranges from square 7-cells (i.e. the Triathalon) to highly elliptical 9-cells (i.e. Stiletto.) At a given size I'd rate 'forgiveness' factor like this:

Triathalon
Spectre
Silhouette
Sabre 1, Monarch
Sabre 2, Pilot
Safire
Stiletto

>What canopy should I be flying at 60 jumps - Sabre, Spectre,
> Saphire, Sabre 2?

At this point, what you're used to is probably the best option, as long as it's sized correctly. Of that list, the Spectre is the most forgiving,

>I don't know that the instructors I had for AFF gave me the complete
>low-down on what I should be flying.

An AFF JM in an AFF course doesn't usually do that; advanced canopy training usually comes later in the ISP.


Ron

May 28, 2003, 11:46 AM
Post #38 of 493 (1876 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Jessica] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Current owners would be allowed to keep what they have now.
It is the only way it could work.

The thing is this...People that this will affect will complain. I am betting just like people who used to pull low fought like hell to not have minumum pull altitudes...Now we don't complain about them, in fact several people think they should be raised.

The people with 100-500 jumps will be upset..The guy with 50 jumps will not really care. Once the 100-500 jump people get to 500...I doubt they will care either. So in 2-3 years it will be accepted, and not even questioned.

As for type of canopy....Well the Dutch regulations go into this...And to be honest I think it is not needed. The type of canopy is not such a factor as wingload. I jumped a Specter 107 the other day...I was impressed at the speed of it. I thought it dove harder than my Stiletto 107. Its speed, not type that is the biggest issue.
Also as soon as you start going into types of canopies...now you have to have a list...As soon as you have a list you have to have it updated whenever a new canopy comes out. And now you have to have someone who updates the canopy list..More work for the USPA.

I think the Jump # to wingload BSR will work....Yes, some people will be held back till they get more jumps, and people will still get hurt. But I think it will be at a reduced rate, and taking a step progression never killed anyone...Skiping steps has.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a better more fair plan....

I personally think that a checkout could be performed to allow people to downsize...I am a big fan of the PRO rating requirements...If you can take the canopy you have now, and land it 10 times in a 30 foot circle 10 times in a row and stand up all 10 landings...Then you could downsize one size.
This would be a put up, or shut up test. Fail, and you have to try again later. I have done this on a ST120, Star Trac I, Sharpchutter, ST107, Extreme 88, Velocity 96..ect.

But then you would have buddies pencil whip it for people..

Truth...I never had live water training till the Army.

So it happens.

Ron


sarge  (A 36)

May 28, 2003, 11:51 AM
Post #39 of 493 (1873 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
.The Dutch have regulations.

> Dutch Regs

Hey Ron, You may also remember the lengthy discussion we had on this [related] subject in "Dead Man Walking?"

In that dialoge we were debating at length the idea of imposing training regs.ie:canopy courses as requirements for canopy downsizing. et al

If I recall, your comments on that subject had something to do with that the USPA would unlikely not being willing to go to the extra effort of imposing such regulations [even if they could be enforced] ... so your newest proposal kind of seems like the same flavor with a different twist. ie:canopy regs based on some modus of experience. But still stuck on trying to oversimplify it by imposing minimum jump numbers... I believe its a pandoras box.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either idea if it is well thought-out and implemented and enforced. I applaud your continued enthusiasm and interest in improving canopy safety.

However, in yet another discussion, we talked about self-policing and being 'Anti-regulations' of any sort.

How the heck are we ever going to find any agreement on these questions?


Ron

May 28, 2003, 11:59 AM
Post #40 of 493 (1861 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sarge] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Well the thing is I don't personally think it has a chance of getting passed.

USPA does not like to regulate....However while the ISP program is a step in the right direction, I don't think it will affect the people who are at the highest risk.

Education is the best answer....However I don't see how a program can be put into place that will cover ALL DZ's, and ALL pilots (Remember some people don't ever want to swoop...Should we make them learn to pass a course?), and that can be done by ANY instructor.

The closest I have ever seen is the PRO program I wrote about in another post. If people feel strongly enough...hell include it, but I think it will just create more work, and greater liability. (Im sueing you because you signed me off to fly this canopy...You said I would be safe.)

A jump # to wingload plan is easy to use...
It is easy to understand...
It will reduce injuries/fatalities....

Ron


ladyskydiver

May 28, 2003, 12:02 PM
Post #41 of 493 (1847 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The people with 100-500 jumps will be upset.

I've got 111 jumps. My wingloading is 0.91 to 1 - 130 lbs., 25 lbs. of gear (yes, I weighed it Laugh), Silhouette 170. (And, as I stated, I'm not in a hurry to downsize.)

What bothers me about your proposal is that it seems like more regulation. Since it was pointed out that we already have canopy control items in the SIM's, instead of adding more regulation, why not just enforce what we have? We've got the S&TA's signing off on our licenses as well as our JM's. They are saying it's ok for people to move to the next step in their training. Instead of adding a whole other BSR, why not add another line to the A license checklist (and continue through all licenses as desired) to make sure that people can handle their current canopies like what you quoted below?

Quote:
I personally think that a checkout could be performed to allow people to downsize...I am a big fan of the PRO rating requirements...If you can take the canopy you have now, and land it 10 times in a 30 foot circle 10 times in a row and stand up all 10 landings...Then you could downsize one size.
This would be a put up, or shut up test. Fail, and you have to try again later. I have done this on a ST120, Star Trac I, Sharpchutter, ST107, Extreme 88, Velocity 96..ect.

Wouldn't that do the same thing as your proposed BSR?


Ron

May 28, 2003, 12:13 PM
Post #42 of 493 (1841 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ladyskydiver] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What bothers me about your proposal is that it seems like more regulation.

Like pull altitudes....20 jumps to do CRW....Night jumps for the "D"....AAD's for students....RSL's for students (Unless you are Perris, someone explain that one to me)......Wind limits.....Landing area sizes.....Water training.....ect...

We already have tons of regulations....Someone wrote that the BSR's are written in blood...How much blood does it take to write a new one?

In reply to:
Since it was pointed out that
we already have canopy control items in the SIM's, instead of adding more regulation, why not just enforce
what we have?

Because it is a problem that is not covered by the ones we already have. The ISP will not keep a guy with 300 jumps from hooking it in under a 1.8 loaded canopy.

In reply to:
Instead of adding a whole other BSR, why not add
another line to the A license checklist (and continue through all licenses as desired) to make sure that
people can handle their current canopies like what you quoted below?

What would be the difference between a new BSR, and a checkout for a license? Nothing. The standard has to be set. The BSR would do this.


AndyMan  (D 25698)

May 28, 2003, 12:26 PM
Post #43 of 493 (1837 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Brian Germaine's method.

The problem I have with it is that it puts the hundred pound girl into the same category as the two-twenty pound guy.

Canopies do not scale linearly. The effects of wing-loading do not scale linearly.

A fat-ass can jump at 1.2 with 40 jumps just as safely as a lightweight at .8

Any canopy regulation needs to reflect this fact of aerodynamics.

I would much rather see more stringent canopy control lessons being manditory.

_Am


sarge  (A 36)

May 28, 2003, 12:50 PM
Post #44 of 493 (1823 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

We've got Dzs that have "No Hook Turn" rules others that have minimum canopy sizes (no matter what the experience level) and types/locations of jumps that require minimum license requirements.

>Education is the best answer...

I whole-heartedly agree!!! -with proficiency demonstrations- But the PRO rating system to qualify for downsizing doesn't seem practical or realistic for at least a few reasons!

On a day-to-day basis at most Dzs, the resident culture of that DZ generally dictates the type and style of canopy used and how it is flown. It seems that somebody wanting to fit in to the 'cool' crowd is going to have more issues at a DZ where swooping is popular. But then again, vast exposure to skilled and experienced swoopers that are there to identify these issues. Because what are we really talking about here? Swooping.

>Remember some people don't ever want to swoop...Should we make them learn to pass a course?

-Yes- ... why not?

Non-swoopers are not interested in heavy wingloading, (none that I know anyway...) but they'll have a reserve 10-30' smaller than their main? ...._what_about_them... Yes, now do we just ignore reserve size if somebody opts out of the heavier wingloading catagory? I read recently about how (was it Eloy) got a bunch of reserves for people to demo, very few of the smaller ones got jumped because jumpers felt they were too small- even though they had the very same reserve locked up in their rig??? WTF??

> A jump # to wingload plan is easy to use...
>It is easy to understand...
>It will reduce injuries/fatalities....

And you can't just say, "Well this pilot has over 10,000 hours flying planes like 747s,767s etc, sure he shouldn't have to check out on this Cherokee he's never flown before..." True story, the guy crashed, killing himself and his three passengers... cause he ran out of gas!!! Geez!


rhino  (D 22500)

May 28, 2003, 12:55 PM
Post #45 of 493 (1815 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

The USPA will never go for it. Nor will the skydiving community. You cannot blanket judge jumpers like that. at 375 jumps I am at 1.95 and there I will stay. Having 375 jumps says NOTHING for my canopy skills.

Rhino


Jessica  (B 25202)

May 28, 2003, 12:56 PM
Post #46 of 493 (1813 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AndyMan] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
A fat-ass can jump at 1.2 with 40 jumps just as safely as a lightweight at .8

I'm familiar with the non-linear scaling of canopy sizes, but that sounds really extreme to me. I doubt that's accurate.

Anyway, one would hope that in the rare case of the 90-lb jumper, instructors and staff would help him or her choose a safe canopy. There's a woman at my dropzone who probably doesn't weigh 100 lbs, and she's having a hell of a time trying to get them to let her jump something at 1:1.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 28, 2003, 12:58 PM
Post #47 of 493 (1810 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AndyMan] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>A fat-ass can jump at 1.2 with 40 jumps just as safely as a
>lightweight at .8

And a fat-ass will hurt himself a lot more easily than a light (in-shape) woman in any given impact.

I agree with what you're saying - but these guidelines are not intended to put people under ideal wing loadings. They are intended to keep people off unsafe wing loadings (until they get canopy training per my addendum) and thus are chosen to be conservative enough to protect both the lightweight and the lardass.


rhino  (D 22500)

May 28, 2003, 1:02 PM
Post #48 of 493 (1804 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Jessica] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Personally I think MUCH MUCH more emphasis on canopy control should be included in AFF. Like maybe 5 hop-n-pops from altitude where TONS of flares and flat turns should be done. Building strength in the arms where it needs to be. Making the students feel more comfortable in the harness. Having done 5 hop-n-pops and flared 50 times or so will do WONDERS for new canopy pilots.

It needs to be done in initial training not in gustapo canopy regulating.

Rhino


jlmiracle  (D License)

May 28, 2003, 1:09 PM
Post #49 of 493 (1795 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Well the thing is I don't personally think it has a chance of getting passed.

USPA does not like to regulate....However while the ISP program is a step in the right direction, I don't think it will affect the people who are at the highest risk.

The USPA does not like to regulate, but they do like to make money - yes make money. If you can present this to them in a way they can make money, I would guess they would jump all over it. But if the USPA is making money then someone has to dish it out and its more money the students have to come up with.

I am am a pretty conservative canopy pilot, and I have a tendency to freak out when I see someone jumping something I don't think they should jump.

Like Diverdriver said, it would involve more examiners. There are too many "old school" teachers out there not giving out all the canopy information they should. It's not necessarily on purpose, but just habit.

I hope what you presented to the USPA will at least be discussed at the next BOD meeting. You have given them a good place to at least start.

Good Luck!

Judy


CanuckInUSA  (D 26396)

May 28, 2003, 1:26 PM
Post #50 of 493 (1781 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

It seems that every week there's a new thread, but the same topic. On one hand I do think constantly bringing up this topic of canopy choice is good because it reinforces the seriousness of the topic (and maybe a new person will come along and the light will go off in their head). But on the other hand it gets a little old hearing the same thing over and over again by the same people on both sides of the table.

I don't know what the solution is, but I think peer pressure from our friends, instructors and coaches to NOT downsize too quickly is likely the logical answer. If more canopy control courses were offered, people would be more skilled and less people would be getting hurt. But those courses seem to be few and far between. So we are pretty much left to fend for ourselves and learn through trial and error.

One thing is for sure, skydivers with years of experience have been getting hurt under these pocket rocket canopies. So the problem doesn't just lie with the inexperienced. Of course the experienced people are less likely to put themselves in a dicey situation.


Jessica  (B 25202)

May 28, 2003, 2:13 PM
Post #51 of 493 (1711 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CanuckInUSA] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I don't know what the solution is, but I think peer pressure from our friends, instructors and coaches to NOT downsize too quickly is likely the logical answer.

But the thing is, that DOESN'T work. Unfortunately, the converse is true -- peer pressure among jumpers is to downsize as quick as you can. God forbid you be "bored" under canopy.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

May 28, 2003, 2:59 PM
Post #52 of 493 (1697 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CanuckInUSA] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't know what the solution is, but I think peer pressure from our friends, instructors and coaches to NOT downsize too quickly is likely the logical answer.
Yeah, peer pressure. Peer pressure now is to fly something small so you won't get bored - god forbid you should be bored under canopy! It should be to fly something big until you know what the fuck you're doing.

Until every skydiver, instructor, rigger, gear seller, etc., is advising new jumpers to fly something they can fuck up under and still live, and every new jumper gets state of the art canopy control training both as a student and after, it will continue to work just as well as it is now. Which is to put new jumpers under canopies that they can't handle when the shit hits the fan.

In reply to:
One thing is for sure, skydivers with years of experience have been getting hurt under these pocket rocket canopies. So the problem doesn't just lie with the inexperienced. Of course the experienced people are less likely to put themselves in a dicey situation.
No one is saying that more experienced jumpers aren't getting hurt under those canopies. No one is saying that there aren't people with thousands of jumps who need canopy control training as much or maybe more than the 100 jumps wonders who want to jump 1.5 wing loadings.

The likelihood of someone with 1000 jumps surviving a bad situation under a 1.5 wingloading is much higher than the chances someone with 100 jumps has of surviving the same "shit happened" scenario under the same wingloading - because chances are good that person with 1000 jumps has seen the same shit happen before.

imho the number of skydivers with under 500 jumps and skydiving-related titanium in their bones is totally unacceptable. Not to mention the ones that are dead now.

What we're doing now isn't working. Regardless of whether it's wingloading regulation, education or a combination of both... something needs to change before someone's mad mother comes along and insists on REAL regulation.


Steel  (D 23585)

May 28, 2003, 3:45 PM
Post #53 of 493 (1681 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Have you been to Amsterdam the capital of Holland, the most pornographic, highest drug using city in the world. (Great example to learn from) Or Sweden the most socialist country in all of Europe, another big bunch of sickoes. I don't want to offend Norway cause I have good freinds from there. But I will say that if you had been to these places, as I have, or if you knew more about them. Atleast then you would know that to use them as a model for our policy is just silly. We are more likely the ones that should be setting the example for the rest of the world.


BMFin

May 28, 2003, 3:52 PM
Post #54 of 493 (1674 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In Finland We have limits that allows us to jump these canopies @ 1.34 max if we have less than 250 jumps.After 250 we are only regulated by peer pressure.

In other hand this is a good system, but on the other hand this seems to lead in to a situation when every new C-licence holder buys a canopy loaded @ 1.3. Most people here dont seem to remember that this is the maximum we are allowed. It is not the ideal for everyone just got their C-licence. IMO Some people can handle it @ 1.3 after 50 jumps and others cant... Those who cant, should realize that they cant.. But they wont since they seem to think: "Im safe as long as Im playing by the rules."

Im talking about C-licence because we have a different system there also. We get A-licence after 6 jumps. B-licence after 30 jumps and C-licence after 48 jumps (if there is no need to jump any levels again.) After C-licence we are ready jump on our own. (this is IAD system. We also train with the AFF system but it is also different than in the US.) Also it tends to be so that after 250 people will immediedly buy a stiletto loaded more than 1.3, And thats not good always either. As I said some can handle it some others cant.

About this system:

1.1 100jumps
1.2 200jumps
.
.
1.5 500jumps

I wouldnt like that too much. Since I truly belive that there are a lot of people who can safely jump higher Wingloadings sooner.. It would not be fair to make the rules by the weakest link.. The big question is : Where to draw the line of safety ? Since we can never prevent every incident from happening unless we stop skydiving completely.


FlyGuy  (D 26826)

May 28, 2003, 4:05 PM
Post #55 of 493 (1665 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that something needs to be done, but I don't have the answer either. The problem I see with your proposal is that we don't even have a standard of measurement for canopies, so how do you accurately measure wingloading? A 150 from one manufacturer is closer to a 170 but from another is closer to a 135. I recall a discussion about canopy sizing before.

I think that the answer is in better education. I know that when I went through AFF less than 2 years ago, very little was discussed about canopy control.


BMFin

May 28, 2003, 4:11 PM
Post #56 of 493 (1657 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Have you been to Amsterdam the capital of Holland, the most pornographic, highest drug using city in the world. (Great example to learn from) Or Sweden the most socialist country in all of Europe, another big bunch of sickoes. I don't want to offend Norway cause I have good freinds from there. But I will say that if you had been to these places, as I have, or if you knew more about them. Atleast then you would know that to use them as a model for our policy is just silly. We are more likely the ones that should be setting the example for the rest of the world.


Im glad you took this example about Holland. I also have been in Holland and Sweden many times. In holland people use much less cannabis than in the U.S. Dutch ministry of traffic (im not sure about the correct term of the ministry) did a study together with the dutch ministry of health about cannabis usage in holland compared to US. Now we all know U.S has VERY hard policy on drugs. You can get sentenced BIG TIME for posession in US. And as we know holland has the most liberal policy on soft drugs.

They made a query on people over 12 years and among many other questions they asked these:

1. Have you ever used cannabis ?

2. Have you used cannabis in the last 12 months ?


Question 1 :
Dutch 34% YES
US 54% YES

Question 2:
Dutch 3.5% YES
US 5.5% YES


YES a county that has no legal restrictions on cannabis uses less cannabis than a country that has propably the most Strict policy.

This just proves the law of the forbidden fruit. I would belive it also applies to downsizing too.

I would definetly give people more resposibility. They respect these issues much more once they understand its only up to them selves.


Steel  (D 23585)

May 28, 2003, 4:26 PM
Post #57 of 493 (1645 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BMFin] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

I believe what you say in that making something illegal makes some people want to do it more. And obviously the idea of making policies on wingloading is something I am opposed to. But just for the record, although I don't doubt that those statistics you mention may have indeed been collected somehow, I still find doubt on their accuracy. If you walk through the streets of Amsterdam the amount of roaches (bud or last part of a marijuana cigarette) is higher than any other city I have ever been to. I have been to the biggest cities of 18 different countries (Milan, Paris, Rome, Moscow, Minsk, Budapest, Athens, Berlin, Vienna, Prague, Warsaw, Ottawa, {NYC well I am from there}, just to name a few) and there is no question that no other city even came close to Amsterdam in physical evidence that people there were smoking canabis/marijuana. And I am sure everybody knows about the coffee shops.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 28, 2003, 4:32 PM
Post #58 of 493 (1640 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CanuckInUSA] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>I don't know what the solution is, but I think peer pressure from our
> friends, instructors and coaches to NOT downsize too quickly is likely
> the logical answer.

Tried that; it doesn't work. They ignore you. They jump somewhere else. You get called a canopy nazi and people seek out (and find) the one instructor who thinks it's OK to jump that 2 to 1 canopy at 200 jumps.

>If more canopy control courses were offered, people would be more
> skilled and less people would be getting hurt.

Agreed. They don't exist in most places because there are no requirements for them.

>So we are pretty much left to fend for ourselves and learn
>through trial and error.

If that's the case, we need some way to prevent the guy with 40 jumps from jumping the Stiletto 97. "Hey, don't jump that thing" doesn't work. About the only thing stopping people from jumping such things today are death or permanent disability; seems like a bad system.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 28, 2003, 4:39 PM
Post #59 of 493 (1632 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>Have you been to Amsterdam the capital of Holland, the most
>pornographic, highest drug using city in the world.

I have. The people there are great. Violent crime is low - 1.9 murders per 100,000 people vs 9.5 in the US. Fewer kids use drugs in Amsterdam than in the US. What was your point again?


Steel  (D 23585)

May 28, 2003, 4:46 PM
Post #60 of 493 (1626 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Fewer kids on drugs than the US, I don't think so. And I don't have anything against Dutch people anyway I enjoyed my visit to that city quite a bit. But after living for 9 months in Europe and getting to know people for many European countries I understood quite clearly why other European countries were ify about having Holland in the European Union. They know the Dutch are totally carefree, careless people and don't want all the undesireables coming in through Holland simply because the Dutch don't care. So my point was these are not people we should be learning from. Instead these are people who should be learning from us.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 28, 2003, 5:02 PM
Post #61 of 493 (1611 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>Fewer kids on drugs than the US, I don't think so.

5% of children 15 or younger have used MJ in Amsterdam; 13% of US children have tried it by that age.

http://www.cedro-uva.org/...wijk.prvasd94.06.pdf
http://www.samhsa.gov/...MJuse/YouthMJuse.htm


>They know the Dutch are totally carefree, careless people . . .

I would agree with the carefree part; I know quite a few Dutch who are not careless. Given that they live in a country where a broken _pump_ could kill people and destroy whole towns, that's sort of a funny thing to say.

>Instead these are people who should be learning from us.

Hmm. Lower crime? No billion dollar war on crime - and still less drug usage? What would they learn from us, exactly? How to kill drug dealers?

And what does this have to do with a canopy loading BSR?


Steel  (D 23585)

May 28, 2003, 5:15 PM
Post #62 of 493 (1604 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Well then I guess it must be the adults who don't know any better because with all the roaches all over the streets of Amsterdam somebody must be smoking it. Or are you telling me its the American tourists?


Jessica  (B 25202)

May 28, 2003, 5:17 PM
Post #63 of 493 (1602 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

What does this have to do with having a wingloading BSR? Even if Amsterdam were the filthiest city on Earth, that wouldn't make having canopy size guidelines bad. It's silly logic.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 28, 2003, 5:22 PM
Post #64 of 493 (1595 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>because with all the roaches all over the streets of Amsterdam somebody must be smoking it.

Uh, it's illegal in the US. That means that if you get caught you go to jail. That means that people hide the fact that they do it. They don't hide it in Amsterdam so you see more of it.


BMFin

May 28, 2003, 5:27 PM
Post #65 of 493 (1591 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I believe what you say in that making something illegal makes some people want to do it more. And obviously the idea of making policies on wingloading is something I am opposed to. But just for the record, although I don't doubt that those statistics you mention may have indeed been collected somehow, I still find doubt on their accuracy. If you walk through the streets of Amsterdam the amount of roaches (bud or last part of a marijuana cigarette) is higher than any other city I have ever been to. I have been to the biggest cities of 18 different countries (Milan, Paris, Rome, Moscow, Minsk, Budapest, Athens, Berlin, Vienna, Prague, Warsaw, Ottawa, {NYC well I am from there}, just to name a few) and there is no question that no other city even came close to Amsterdam in physical evidence that people there were smoking canabis/marijuana. And I am sure everybody knows about the coffee shops.

Okay I have visited about 25 different countrys in Europe only. And Yes ! It is true that you really can see alot of drug users in DAM especially around the Central Train Station and around the Red light district. But the reason is that Amsterdam gets a huge amount of tourists attracted by the coffee shops. I also admit that there are many hard drug users in the red light district, But there is a reason for this also. In Holland you can test the purity of your drug in a laboratory for free (cocaine, extacy, Heroine..) anonymously and noone will arrest you. This is to get the bad shit out from the streets. Due to this a lot of people addicted to heroin come to Amsterdam because they can have a longer life this way. They can test their stuff and they wont have to be afraid of going to be sentenced as long as they are not selling.

It is not the Dutch you see using drugs in Ams. Its the foreigners

Also please remember that it is just a lot more visible in Ams then in other places. In other places people have to do it hidden..


BMFin

May 28, 2003, 5:31 PM
Post #66 of 493 (1588 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Jessica] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What does this have to do with having a wingloading BSR? Even if Amsterdam were the filthiest city on Earth, that wouldn't make having canopy size guidelines bad. It's silly logic.


This is a question about the effects of liberal policy..


d604  (D 604)

May 28, 2003, 5:59 PM
Post #67 of 493 (1577 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Education and regulation might be your best bet to get something like this passed. In Canada we have a Sport Canopy Endorsement that a skydiver needs to get before getting their A CoP, and then a review of this endorsement before getting their B CoP. This endorsement covers topics like high performance parachutes, wing loading, and a whole mess of other stuff that can be covered. Although, the skydiver is taught what they should jump given their experience, and other factors there is no rule or even a recommendation about max wing loading.

So trying to include an endorsement for your A CoP might be your best bet, but I believe USPA just revamped their CoPs so if its not in their now you most likely not get it soon. Also, having a condition like the reply from the skydiver from Finland where there is a limit for B CoP skydivers and under, then once they get their C its up to them to make up their mind.

Sean


markbaur  (D 6108)

May 28, 2003, 7:41 PM
Post #68 of 493 (1552 views)
Shortcut
Re: [d604] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Have any regulationists suggested limits which would prevent themselves from jumping their current canopies? Or is it only other people who are unsafe?

Mark


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

May 28, 2003, 7:46 PM
Post #69 of 493 (1550 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Actually, the, erm, regulationists are saying that anyone who is currently jumping a canopy that's outside of the specs would be grandfathered.

So no, we're not trying crap in anyone's current nest. Just trying to prevent people from making future plans that increase significantly the likelihood of their crapping in their own.

Wendy W.


crazy  (D 23767)

May 28, 2003, 8:14 PM
Post #70 of 493 (1538 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Some time ago i already made similar comments about your analysis, but you never acknowledged the problem. So i ask again: why did you select the year 2002?
If you select 2001, the results are very different. From the Us fatalities in 2001, i got:

num - jumps - WL (lb/ft^2) - comments
# 6 - 4700 - 2.0 - straight in approach, no flare (lost toggle?)
#7 - 1 - ?? - backed up ino a hangar
#13 - 900+ - 1.5 - low turn
#15 - lots - ?? - After a CRW jump, front riser + lost toggle
#17 - 40 - 1.1 - low turn to avoid power lines
#21 - Experienced - ?? - low turn
#23 - 80 - ?? - landing out in steep hills and obstacles
#24 - 31000 - 1.4 - canopy collapse
#25 - ?? - ?? - a 63 years old guy during a demo jump
#31 - 201 - 1.3 - hit a roof, back from a long spot

Your rule would apply only to #17 and #31, reducing the WL by 0.1, something insignificant, unlikely to save them. Both cases involve hazards, hence, better training and safer operations would be much more efficient than regulations about WL.
60% of these accidents are experienced or very experienced skydivers. Are you going to ask the USPA to regulate for experienced skydivers as well? In that case, the limit should be less than 1.4 for everybody, just to be on the safe side, right?
Even "lost toggles" seems to be a more serious issue than WL in that list. Shall we add mandatory velcro gloves for everybody?
40% (likely 50%) of these fatalities involve hazards. Don't you think that there is something there?

Apparently your analysis is biased because your sample is not really representative of the reality. It is based on the data from only one year.

If you are that motivated to get the USPA involved (i object strongly on this point), then you should do a bit more homework. Did you check the fatality rates in other countries (apparently you use the fact that other countries regulate, as an argument for the regulation by the USPA). My personal guess is that the rate of landing fatalities is not directly related to the regulation. Denmark has one and also has an average rate of landing fatalities (right?); France has no regulation and a very low rate of landing fatalities (don' go there you'll get a heart attack for the WL and the toggle hook turns).

An other objection is that WL is an extremely poor indicator of the risk (you could include the planform factor as well). In addition, when the technology and the training will improve, the values will become outdated and there will be more endless discussions to decide arbitrarily if 1.23 is an appropriate WL for someone with 200 jumps.

Proper training, set of mind, and the supervision is way more efficient than arbitrary rules. Define a training program, or a high performance canopy licence, and you will probably get more support (including mine).
Well, training programs exist since the mid-90s, so, what we really need is their application.


Mad47

May 28, 2003, 9:11 PM
Post #71 of 493 (1530 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Dude, check out the profile of the person you are arguing with. Listening more to people like Ron before screaming to the whole world that we know a lot will probably help people like us to become old skydivers.


Zenister  (A 42)

May 28, 2003, 9:37 PM
Post #72 of 493 (1521 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crazy] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Apparently your analysis is biased because your sample is not really representative of the reality. It is based on the data from only one year.

....
Proper training, set of mind, and the supervision is way more efficient than arbitrary rules. Define a training program, or a high performance canopy licence, and you will probably get more support (including mine).
Well, training programs exist since the mid-90s, so, what we really need is their application.

thanks, i've been trying to point out again and again that the sample size we are talking about is to small to draw conclusions from, ut because this is an emotionally charged issue (you know people DIE..OMG) some people want instant regulation without really looking at the complete numbers..

there are alot of other factors that need to be considered EVEN when you are looking at a single year..(currency on canopy type and wingloading, weather conditions, apparent landing skills on previous canopies etc..)

everyone keeps saying "look at other countries!?!" well this isnt an other country, how many jumps per year are made in those other countries? how does that compare to the fatality rate?

i think we can all agree its a tragedy when someone dies from nearly any cause, however we should use them as an examples of why people need training when making canopy recommendations....sure your still going to get egoists who dont think the guidelines apply to them or that the need to get training...and they should simply continue to provide examples to those with 'better sense' who are interesting in being able to jump again tomorrow


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

May 28, 2003, 9:44 PM
Post #73 of 493 (1518 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

If you include serious accidents as well as deaths, there are a lot more serious, even devastating, injuries under perfectly good but misflown canopies than before.

I used to jump a lot in the days of "dangerous" round, up to when squares were comparatively low-performance but common (1985 or so). "femur" was not a verb in those days. I don't remember anyone crippling themself. I remember one really serious head injury from a landing, and a significant (but nowhere close to large) number of broken ankles.

Yes, this is anecdotal. But there's a whole lot of anecdotal evidence out there.
If regulation isn't the way to deal with the seeming glut of injuries, do you know someone who will step up to helping with all the canopy control classes, coaching, and peer pressure to keep folks on safer wingloadings for them?

Wendy W.


rmsmith

May 28, 2003, 10:05 PM
Post #74 of 493 (1511 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Education is the key.
I think it was last year on the east coast that a genius scientist type double front riser dived hitting the ground at roughly the same time as his canopy if I recall correctly. If anyone understood dynamics (acceleration) it would have been this unfortunate soul. However, years of education in the physical sciences didn't influence his judgment under a canopy.

These hard landing incidents are nothing different than those dashing gentlemen with waxed mustaches stepping off the Eiffel Towel with "wings" lashed to their arms while the ladies in umbrella dresses waited below.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 28, 2003, 10:08 PM
Post #75 of 493 (1511 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>i think we can all agree its a tragedy when someone dies from nearly
>any cause, however we should use them as an examples of why people
> need training when making canopy recommendations.

That hasn't worked yet. What do you propose to change to make that work in the future?

>and they should simply continue to provide examples to those with
>'better sense' who are interesting in being able to jump again tomorrow.

An argument that skydivers should continue to die at the same rate so that others might, out of fear, try to avoid the same fate, doesn't carry much weight with me (or with most of the people I jump with.) I've known some of those 'examples' you refer to, and the sport is not better off after their deaths.


Zenister  (A 42)

May 28, 2003, 10:19 PM
Post #76 of 493 (1304 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

you know i'm sure i'll get the "how callous can you be?" response, but you know when you start they tell you again and again that you might die while doing this..if thats not a risk your prepared to take, and if your not mature enough to make decisions about what you can & should be flying, then maybe the gene pool is better off without you..

yeah it sucks when anyone dies, to bad more people dont learn from it & seek the knowledge and training necessary to minimize the chances of it happening to them instead of screaming about how "that shouldnt be allowed!!"

its not fear that should motivate anyone, its the desire to repeat the experience again in the morning. Fear also shouldnt motivate anyone to "be their brothers keeper" either.

and yes i have already lost friends in this and other risky endeavors.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 28, 2003, 10:56 PM
Post #77 of 493 (1294 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>but you know when you start they tell you again and again that you might
> die while doing this..if thats not a risk your prepared to take, and if
>your not mature enough to make decisions about what you can &
>should be flying, then maybe the gene pool is better off without you.

You can die a lot of ways in this sport. Most people know this. We have rules to prevent some of the more common deaths, like people who like to pull at 500 feet or jump on moonless nights with no lights. Are we infringing on their rights by not letting them do that? Sure. Why do we do it? Because some restriction of their rights will, we feel, do much more good than harm.

>Fear also shouldnt motivate anyone to "be their brothers keeper" either.

It is a desire to balance the good of being able to do whatever you want with the bad of seeing a lot of people die that motivates me, and (I think) motivates most people. We as a group think it's a good idea to set pull altitudes, restrictions on new grads, who can do demos, and when you have to get water training. We instituted those because a lot of people were dying; the BSR's were written in blood. We don't set restrictions on who can freefly because, so far, not too many people have died doing that too soon.

If people weren't dying under perfectly good canopies, then this issue would never come up. They are. If the number of deaths decreases - perhaps through your method of people learning from examples, or through peer pressure - then the desire for canopy regulation will go away. It will not be needed. If the current trends continue i.e. people jump ever smaller canopies sooner, without more education - then there will be cry for regulation, and proposed regulations will pass. This won't be because anyone wants to reduce your freedom, they just want to see fewer dead skydivers at the end of the year. That is one of the most basic purposes of USPA.

So it's really up to us. If you're OK with more regulation, then the canopy deaths we're seeing now (the 'examples' you refer to) can continue to rise. If you would prefer no new regulation, all the protesting in the world won't do much good. It didn't stop pull altitude requirements or student safety gear requirements. What will prevent new regulation is a decrease in fatalities under good canopies.


mikkey  (D License)

May 28, 2003, 11:24 PM
Post #78 of 493 (1289 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Have you been to Amsterdam the capital of Holland, the most pornographic, highest drug using city in the world. (Great example to learn from) Or Sweden the most socialist country in all of Europe, another big bunch of sickoes. I don't want to offend Norway cause I have good freinds from there. But I will say that if you had been to these places, as I have, or if you knew more about them. Atleast then you would know that to use them as a model for our policy is just silly. We are more likely the ones that should be setting the example for the rest of the world.

2 points: Firstly, you are giving comfort to people who think that all Americans are arrogant people who without much (or any) knowledge of other countries and cultures are telling them how to live their lives. I have both friends and familiy in the US, but it pisses me off big time when some Americans think that the US way of doing things is always the best. And clearly it is not - look at your crime rate, your education system, your participaction rate at elections etc. etc. So just because you visited some countries don't think you can judge them. You are clearly showing the "ugly" American face by rambling on about these countries without even having the facts right. I assume you watch "Fox News" a lot Unsure

2. This has nothing to do with the operation of Skydiving in those countries, so your post is irrelevant. I have no statistical data, but I am quite sure that the accident rate for canopy landings is probably lower in countries where there is some regulation.


(This post was edited by mikkey on May 28, 2003, 11:37 PM)


Zenister  (A 42)

May 28, 2003, 11:48 PM
Post #79 of 493 (1281 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mikkey] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I have no statistical data, but I am quite sure that the accident rate for canopy landings is probably lower in countries where there is some regulation.

i seriously doubt this, since far more jumps per year are made in america. you really have to look at the number as a percentage of total participation...but i'd be really interesting in more detailed statistics all around...(canopy types, currency etc...)

still havent seen numbers that justify the "its raining blood" positions some people have taken on this issue because they happened to be close to someone who unfortunately contributed to the statistics..


Ron

May 29, 2003, 3:44 AM
Post #80 of 493 (1265 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
375 jumps I am at 1.95 and there I will stay. Having 375 jumps says NOTHING for my canopy skills.

Would you consider yourself an average canopy pilot?
Or an above average canopy pilot? (I know what he will say folks...It is the same thing ALL of the people that DIED say..."I'm above average of course...those others were stupid and had no natural skill...I am much better than then I have a pilots license/taken a canopy course/a degree from MIT/mad natural skill/people who coach me/blaaa blaa blaa...)

But lets just say that this is not intended to limit the JR swoopgods....Only delay the canopy size till they can get knowledge, and the skills to survive. I bet all jumpers will say that they thought they knew what they were doing at 100 jumps...till they get 500, then they realize they didn't know squat...Of course now at 500 jumps they do..until they get 1,000 ect,ect.

In reply to:
You cannot blanket judge jumpers like that.

Why not? We do it all the time.

Sarge...
Tell me why the PRO rating system will not work?

Ron


Ron

May 29, 2003, 3:48 AM
Post #81 of 493 (1263 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Have you been to Amsterdam the capital of Holland, the most pornographic, highest drug using city in the
world. (Great example to learn from) Or Sweden the most socialist country in all of Europe, another big
bunch of sickoes. I don't want to offend Norway cause I have good freinds from there. But I will say that if
you had been to these places, as I have, or if you knew more about them. Atleast then you would know
that to use them as a model for our policy is just silly. We are more likely the ones that should be setting
the example for the rest of the world.

Unrelated babel...They are doing something about a problem...It will work.

The reason that they can do it, is becasue they don't have people bitching that their rights are being hurt.

We do. But I don't care about stepping on your rights...I am just wanting to delay them for the good of you, the sport, and me.

Ron


(This post was edited by Ron on May 29, 2003, 4:00 AM)


Ron

May 29, 2003, 4:07 AM
Post #82 of 493 (1261 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crazy] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Ya know why I choose last year?....

Simple..It was last year.

Now the reason tha we are seeing an increase in the number of jr jumpers flying a canpopy to their death is quite simple....

They can.

Back when the Stiletto came out there was a waiver to get one....And if it was a 107 or 97, there was a size waver as well. Now that is not the case. Almost anyone with 100 jumps can get a Stiletto/Crossfire/Cobalt with out any problem. Now some people (Thanks Lisa) will not let them...But then these people will just buy a used one from some guy that does not care.

So you see Jr swoopgods flying canopies they die under is becomming a problem because the canopies are easier to get these days, either new, or on the used market.

About how the other countries death rates under canopy is not a valid ratio due to the raw number of jumps....Statisticly the larger the number pool, the better the result....However, to discount it due to the lack of large numbers is foolish. And simply a tactic to try to make my points seem invalid....

Too bad my points are valid, based on just the numbers in the US.

Ron


okalb  (D 22854)

May 29, 2003, 5:32 AM
Post #83 of 493 (1249 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crazy] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So i ask again: why did you select the year 2002?
If you select 2001, the results are very different.

I think that a lot has changed in the last few years. There are several major canopy manufacturers out there that are pushing people very hard into jumping canopies that are too small for them. That is a more recent phenomenon, so the most recent numbers are the ones we need to be looking at. I think as long as those manufacturers keep doing it, the numbers will only increase.


BMFin

May 29, 2003, 5:58 AM
Post #84 of 493 (1235 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Here are the fatalities in Finland for the last 12 years. Choose page 22 Im pretty sure none of these fatalities is due to a hook/low turn. Check it out.


EDIT: the reason why I posted this is becouse some people have suspected we have a lot of incidents becouse of our downsizing culture...


(This post was edited by BMFin on May 29, 2003, 6:00 AM)


BMFin

May 29, 2003, 6:04 AM
Post #85 of 493 (1230 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BMFin] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Anyone know the "jump per fatality" rates in US ? (preferrably from more than 3 years time)


markbaur  (D 6108)

May 29, 2003, 6:05 AM
Post #86 of 493 (1229 views)
Shortcut
Re: [okalb] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There are several major canopy manufacturers out there that are pushing people very hard into jumping canopies that are too small for them.

Name one.

Mark


mikeat10500  (B 3715)

May 29, 2003, 6:08 AM
Post #87 of 493 (1224 views)
Shortcut
Re: Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
at 375 jumps I am at 1.95 and there I will stay.
Can somebody start a poll plotting jump numbers
vrs wingloading? Is this a record? There must be a challenger out there somewhere! So who's got 275
jumps and is at 2.3:1 wingloading? Come on fess up!
...mikeTongue


markbaur  (D 6108)

May 29, 2003, 6:11 AM
Post #88 of 493 (1223 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Actually, the, erm, regulationists are saying that anyone who is currently jumping a canopy that's outside of the specs would be grandfathered.

Why? Statistically, you are more likely to be injured on your next jump than to go any number of jumps and then get injured. If you are serious about regulating, then you shouldn't exempt yourself.

Mark


okalb  (D 22854)

May 29, 2003, 6:12 AM
Post #89 of 493 (1223 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Name one.

I can name several, but that is not the discussion we are having here and I don't think it is appropriate in a public forum.


BMFin

May 29, 2003, 6:12 AM
Post #90 of 493 (1222 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mikeat10500] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Weel I have donwsized from 280 to 120 in 50 jumps. No problems here.


mikeat10500  (B 3715)

May 29, 2003, 6:23 AM
Post #91 of 493 (1212 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BMFin] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

BMFin
Exit wieght?
Wingload?
...mikeCool


samp76  (A 43239)

May 29, 2003, 6:23 AM
Post #92 of 493 (1212 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Just so everyone knows in
2001:
10 deaths due to low turns or high perf. turn

5 low turn jump numbers and wingloading:
39 1.16
70 1.21
300 1.02
4000 unknown
170 1.48

5 high performance landings jump #'s and w/l:
4500 2.0
1000 1.53
4000 unknown - dropped a toggle
600 1.49
2400 1.63

2002 there were 14 deaths dues to canopy control.

USPA did not put the wingloading for the deaths in 2002.

These numbers are based off of the power point presentation for Saftey Day. If anyone wants it I can e-mail it to them. Just PM me.

-Sam-


markbaur  (D 6108)

May 29, 2003, 6:36 AM
Post #93 of 493 (1204 views)
Shortcut
Re: [okalb] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I can name several, but that is not the discussion we are having here and I don't think it is appropriate in a public forum.

Your point was that manufacturers are pushing little canopies, and are therefore at least partially responsible for the consequences, including reducing the size of their future customer base. PM me with your private accusations, then.

Mark


SkyDekker

May 29, 2003, 6:40 AM
Post #94 of 493 (1204 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Have you been to Amsterdam the capital of Holland, the most pornographic, highest drug using city in the world. (Great example to learn from) Or Sweden the most socialist country in all of Europe, another big bunch of sickoes. I don't want to offend Norway cause I have good freinds from there. But I will say that if you had been to these places, as I have, or if you knew more about them. Atleast then you would know that to use them as a model for our policy is just silly. We are more likely the ones that should be setting the example for the rest of the world.

So, you've lived in Europe for 9 months and now you are an expert. That just makes me laugh, just like all those people who say they have seen Europe, yeah you know on one of those 1 or 2 week trips.

ROFLMAO

Dude, before you start spewing, maybe you should check the following statistics:

Drug use by adults and children
Teen pregnancy and teen sexuality

Check those statistics for Holland and the US and then come back and make the same statement again.


Amazon  (D License)

May 29, 2003, 6:46 AM
Post #95 of 493 (1202 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sarge] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Non-swoopers are not interested in heavy wingloading, (none that I know anyway...) but they'll have a reserve 10-30' smaller than their main? ...._what_about_them...

I for one am not in this category. I maxed out my reserve size and my main is about 40 SQ Ft less. I started asking a LOT of questions when I got back into the sport. Then I started shopping around and found a reserve I could live with( Thanks again SkyBytch) 5 reserve rides under rounds taught me the value of size and spotting. Then again. I am not interested in swooping at this point. I may at some point but my Main is plenty of fun to fly at a 1.2 to 1 but when the time for the reserve ride happens.. I want a nice big soft reserve to land under. And If I can stick a dead center in the peas when that happens so much the better.
Do I think we need more regulations?
It seems like common sense is not working. I don't particularly care for more and more intrusion into my life. Do people need to be protected from themselves... I do not know the answers. I love skydiving and if people keep killing themselves and more lawyers get involved I can see a time when I get protected right out of the sky. I would hate to see that happen due to people who use bad judgment and auger in.

Just my take and only I have to live with my decisions. I realized MY mortality before my mortality became the final moment of my life. I NEVER believed I would live as long as I have but somehow I have managed to outlive some of my immortal friends who never realized their mortality in time to save their own lives.

Ok so I am not one of the cool people, then again. I have tried the CPR thing on more than one dead man whose mortality had run out. When you do finally see it happen you get to experience a whole new thing called survivors guilt.. the WHAT IF.

What if I had said something. would it have made a difference.. What if I had done something different... would it make a difference. It does affect you. you can choose to ignore it if you want but you live with it the rest of your lives. I miss some of those people greatly, they were good friends.

What if.

Amazon


BMFin

May 29, 2003, 6:46 AM
Post #96 of 493 (1200 views)
Shortcut
Re: [samp76] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Just so everyone knows in
2001:
10 deaths due to low turns or high perf. turn

5 low turn jump numbers and wingloading:
39 1.16
70 1.21
300 1.02
4000 unknown
170 1.48

5 high performance landings jump #'s and w/l:
4500 2.0
1000 1.53
4000 unknown - dropped a toggle
600 1.49
2400 1.63

2002 there were 14 deaths dues to canopy control.

USPA did not put the wingloading for the deaths in 2002.

These numbers are based off of the power point presentation for Saftey Day. If anyone wants it I can e-mail it to them. Just PM me.

-Sam-

What are the over all jump per fatality numbers in US ?


BMFin

May 29, 2003, 6:48 AM
Post #97 of 493 (1198 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mikeat10500] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
BMFin
Exit wieght?
Wingload?
...mikeCool

155 exit weight. Wingload around 1.3


mikkey  (D License)

May 29, 2003, 7:07 AM
Post #98 of 493 (1192 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BMFin] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Weel I have donwsized from 280 to 120 in 50 jumps. No problems here.

That is exactly the type of guy who will kill himself. 50 jumps and 1.3 on a 120 canopy. Remember him from another thread (dead man walking) where he claimed he was perfectly safe under this canopy because he stood up on most of his landings....

This is exactly the reason why I tend to agree with Ron.


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

May 29, 2003, 7:12 AM
Post #99 of 493 (1186 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BMFin] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Is there a formal canopy coaching program in Finland, or a culture of actually listening to advice? Because if there is a downsizing culture, and Finns aren't hurting themselves disproportionately, then it'd be interesting to find out what the difference is.

It could be partly just that the lower summer temperature means that you have fewer low-density-air problems. It could be that instruction is better. It could be that the general physical fitness is better, or that you're more willing to PLF when needed. And it could be that Finns are smarter. But if the numbers are different for Finns from other countries, there's likely a reason in there.

Wendy W.


BMFin

May 29, 2003, 7:14 AM
Post #100 of 493 (1210 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mikkey] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Weel I have donwsized from 280 to 120 in 50 jumps. No problems here.

That is exactly the type of guy who will kill himself. 50 jumps and 1.3 on a 120 canopy. Remember him from another thread (dead man walking) where he claimed he was perfectly safe under this canopy because he stood up on most of his landings....

This is exactly the reason why I tend to agree with Ron.


I disagree. 1.3 after at my level is VERY normal here. That is the wingloading our instructors advice us to have at our level. We have much more aggressive wingloading culture here, but im pretty sure we have no more accidents then in US (maby less).

Now I do not know why would we be able to fly smaller canopies sooner. It could be our student program. (takes avg. 60 jumps to get our licence.) It could be something else. If you can come up with some Accident per jump and Incident per jump numbers we can start to compare.

You can study some of our statistics from my earlier post in this thread.


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
May 29, 2003, 7:28 AM
Post #101 of 493 (1766 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>Your point was that manufacturers are pushing little canopies, and are therefore at least partially responsible for the consequences, including reducing the size of their future customer base. PM me with your private accusations, then.


I have nothing to lose about making the public accusation. Atair pushes people to get onto small wings.

From their website:

What's the recommended wing loading on a Cobalt?

The Cobalt canopy is an extremely efficient wing. It has the highest measured glide ratio of any skydiving canopy. The extra lift makes for a canopy that flies 'bigger'. To get equal forward speed when comparing to many other canopies you need to load the Cobalt heavier, i.e. 1#/’ on a Sabre should be compared to 1.2#/’ on a cobalt.

1.2-1.4 beginners
1.4-1.6 intermediate
1.6-1.8 high
1.8-2.2 pro
2.2-2.8 extreme
max tested landed wingload 3.6#

NOTE: due to the efficiency of the Cobalt wing, most experienced jumpers will jump a Cobalt 1-2 sizes smaller than competing canopies.


samp76  (A 43239)

May 29, 2003, 8:42 AM
Post #102 of 493 (1747 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BMFin] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
What are the over all jump per fatality numbers in US ?

I am not sure of the jump to fatality number but the total number is as follows:
Quote:
2001 - 35 deaths
2002 - 33 deaths
From USPA website
http://www.uspa.org/.../relative_safety.htm

-Sam-


(This post was edited by samp76 on May 29, 2003, 8:46 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 29, 2003, 8:44 AM
Post #103 of 493 (1745 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BMFin] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>1.3 after at my level is VERY normal here.

Normal does not mean safe. In some cliques at some DZ's, drinking heavily then jumping is normal.

>Now I do not know why would we be able to fly smaller
>canopies sooner. It could be our student program.

If, at your DZ, HP canopy training (on smaller canopies) is part of the training program, then that could be the reason it's possible to do it with some degree of safety. Question - if that's the case, was that canopy training optional?


BMFin

May 29, 2003, 8:58 AM
Post #104 of 493 (1741 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes. I know normal doesnt mean safe. But In my opinion our wingloading culture seems pretty safe. Also, Generally we have much more strict skydiving-regulations in Finland comparet to US. (to a degree it sometimes almost seems like a joke to some of us.)

To some degree we have canopy training included to our student program. For example we have to land in to a 10m circle 10 times to get our licence.

We also have additional canopy training for free, but thats optional. about 20 % of new jumpers will take part. I will also try to take part to this additional training this summer, wich goes for 3-4 days.


mikeat10500  (B 3715)

May 29, 2003, 9:10 AM
Post #105 of 493 (1737 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

PhreeZone

I checked out their web site and found at the bottom
of the wing loading recomendations:

"CAUTION: the above are general guidelines of where other Atair canopy owners are loading. It is not our intent to make recommendations to anyone without knowing them and their skills first hand. For a firm recommendation please consult your local Safety and Training Officer or instructor."

After reading about the Cobalt...Wow ,I'd like to try one out!

...mikeSmile


rhino  (D 22500)

May 29, 2003, 9:23 AM
Post #106 of 493 (1733 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Would you consider yourself an average canopy pilot?
Or an above average canopy pilot?

Why don't you let others give you their opinions?

Hook, Bytch, Phree, Diablopilot, Skycat, Lummy, JTVal, Viking, and on and on and on..

Ask what they think...

What I can tell you is I spent ALOT of time under canopy. And I abort more than I swoop if ANYTHING goes wrong.

Rhino


CanuckInUSA  (D 26396)

May 29, 2003, 9:33 AM
Post #107 of 493 (1728 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Flying a 1.9 elliptical wing at 375 jumps (if that number is accurate) does seem aggresive. But I've never seen you fly so I can't say for sure whether or not you're asking for trouble. I do know that any highly loaded wing is risky whether the pilot is experienced or not (I mean look at Duey from SDTRs a few weeks ago). The margin for error is much smaller.

So have fun but be safe ...


Ron

May 29, 2003, 9:37 AM
Post #108 of 493 (1723 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Replying to:
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. by rhino
Post:

In Reply To


Would you consider yourself an average canopy pilot?
Or an above average canopy pilot?



Why don't you let others give you their opinions?

Hook, Bytch, Phree, Diablopilot, Skycat, Lummy, JTVal, Viking, and on and on and on..

Ask what they think...

What I can tell you is I spent ALOT of time under canopy. And I abort more than I swoop if ANYTHING goes
wrong.

Not really the point....I am not trying to discredit you...
I am just showing how this is part of the problem..

It really does not matter IF YOU can do it...The point I am making is this is an attitude of ALL of the people that are jumping HP canopies with not a lot of jumps.

You *MIGHT* be really good...A natural..Or you might be lucky.

Point is that not everyone is that skilled or lucky.

And yes, I would like to hear from Lisa about you...Not that it changes anything.

I can pull low...I know what gear to use, and how to pack it...I have had several malfunctions, so I know how to see it, and react to it fast. Still it does not make it ok for me to do it. And just because I MIGHT be able to do it...Does not make it OK for everyone...Thats why we have BSR's

Ron

BTW I have spent A LOT of time in freefall below 1500 feet...It does not mean its a good idea. That was when I had 300-800 jumps. And now with almost 3,000 jumps I pull at 2,500. Funny huh? You would think that the more skill I got..The lower I could pull.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

May 29, 2003, 10:11 AM
Post #109 of 493 (1705 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
And yes, I would like to hear from Lisa about you...Not that it changes anything.
Rob's a better canopy pilot than I am - not that that says much Wink

A year ago I would have said he's a crater waiting to happen - in fact, I think I did at least once. I tried very hard to talk him out of the canopy he's flying now. There comes a point when you know you aren't going to change someone's mind and you just have to hope for the best. Oh and btw he did know not to even ask if I'd sell it to him.

I think doing CPR on the guy who hooked into the swoop pond at WFFC last year made a big impression on him. Now I think he's definitely taking more risks than I'd be comfortable with but he also realizes the consequences of a screw up.

Can't say I don't still think he might hurt himself someday; I haven't seen him land his canopy in a small area or when shit happened in front of him. But I have seen him abort a swoop, his hooks are not nearly as low as many other swoopers, and he appears to me to be a student of canopy flight.

It's very possible he's one of the rare few who are capable of handling a highly wingloaded elliptical at low jump numbers. It's also possible that he's just been lucky so far. I like him, so I hope it's the former.


(This post was edited by skybytch on May 29, 2003, 10:39 AM)


rhino  (D 22500)

May 29, 2003, 10:33 AM
Post #110 of 493 (1687 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I haven't seen him land his canopy in a small area or when shit happened in front of him.

Actually I aborted a few times at Perris because of different things on the ground. Everyone landing in that small grass strip makes for fun!! Smile

In reply to:
and he appears to me to be a student of canopy flight.

Yepper!! And allways will be Smile

Rhino


(This post was edited by rhino on May 29, 2003, 10:36 AM)


Ron

May 29, 2003, 10:38 AM
Post #111 of 493 (1678 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

OK, but Rob do you think that everyone takes as much time/effort as you did?

Do you think you are the norm out there?

So like I said, maybe you are an exception...How much worse would you have been if you had to wait till you had 500 jumps to get that canopy?

More importantly do you think that everyone is capable to do what you did?

I would have to say no, and the incident reports agree with me.

Ron


jlmiracle  (D License)

May 29, 2003, 10:50 AM
Post #112 of 493 (1668 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that we need some type of canopy restrictions because I'm tired of watching people limp away, if they are that lucky, but have you taken into account elevations at different dropzones, and how the canopies will perform?

Judy


rhino  (D 22500)

May 29, 2003, 10:50 AM
Post #113 of 493 (1666 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
OK, but Rob do you think that everyone takes as much time/effort as you did?

I have yet to see anyone that does to be honest. Although I am getting MANY people really interested in hop-n-pops from over 12,000 feet these days..

In reply to:
Do you think you are the norm out there?

Far from it.. For most what I am doing seems like suicide. I wouldn't recommend it for ANYONE that hasn't done their homework.

In reply to:
How much worse would you have been if you had to wait till you had 500 jumps to get that canopy?

Not sure. Don't know if I would have kept jumping to be honest. High performance canopy flight brought skydiving alive for me again. It is a whole new, exciting aspect of skydiving requiring exceptional skill, practice, research, patience and judgement. It was a challenge, it is a challenge. The speed is fantastic! What the parachute can do is amazing. I like to challenge myself. It is a constant test of my own judgement and skill. With 2 kids and one on the way I have no intention of doing anything stupid.

Am I willing to accept the risks involved? Absolutely.

In reply to:
More importantly do you think that everyone is capable to do what you did?

No way in hell.. Some people have it and some people don't? If that makes sense. Some people at 2000 jumps have yet to learn to fly a canopy.

Canopy flight basic things such as "below" should be taught in AFF.

recovery arc
rock point
slow speed flight
flat turns
flying in rear risers
front riser dives to get out of wind

These are just some of the things that should be taught in AFF.

I have plans to be an AFF jm someday and when I do I will be teaching exactly what I am preaching.


Rhino


Ron

May 29, 2003, 11:01 AM
Post #114 of 493 (1658 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Canopy flight basic things such as "below" should be taught in AFF.

recovery arc
rock point
slow speed flight
flat turns
flying in rear risers
front riser dives to get out of wind
In reply to:

Peep the ISP....

But still, the people you saw in Perris were tought to flair in the AFF course..Why can't they do it now?

How does this help this problem?

Ron


rhino  (D 22500)

May 29, 2003, 11:22 AM
Post #115 of 493 (1645 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe they were taught to flare but they certainly didn't pay attention to WHY you flare or HOW you flare.

Knowing why and how makes landings much easier.

Rhino


Ron

May 29, 2003, 11:37 AM
Post #116 of 493 (1632 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Maybe they were taught to flare but they certainly didn't pay attention to WHY you flare or HOW you
flare.

Knowing why and how makes landings much easier.

So suddenly they WILL pay attention?

What is wrong with keeping them safe till they do learn either from a school, or the school of hard knocks?

Ron


BMFin

May 29, 2003, 11:37 AM
Post #117 of 493 (1631 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Good point. And it applies to many other things also.

IMO those people who are always asking WHY are a lot better off than the people who just do like the others do...


Michele  (B 26874)

May 29, 2003, 11:51 AM
Post #118 of 493 (1619 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Knowing why and how makes landings much easier.
I am no judge of canopy flight, and am very very new in this sport.

However, I will say that I took a canopy control class at 40 jumps. Took some heat about it, too. Well, actually, took some major heat for it. Did it anyway, and have really improved my accuracy and landings (although I still crash...). And while I could never teach it to anyone, I am starting to understand how and why...

I think that there is a ton of stress put on getting out and having fun in freefall....and that's great. But I sat back and thought about the major danger points (with the help of incidents like we talk about here), and few come from freefall collisions, whereas most come from landing. Therein is the primary danger point. So I addressed that first. And got told I was pretty dumb for wasting that kind of money on something I "couldn't use" - I guess people thought I was learning to swoop or something...LOL!

I put up a poll in canopy control forum, which shows that about 25% of the folks out there have taken a class; that leaves 75% of the folks learning from friends (who may not know), watching others (who may be doing it wrong), or learning by the seat of their pants (literally).

The question I have is simple: should only 25% of the people take AFF/SL, and just let the other 75% fall out of the plane on their own?? We take classes from those we perceive as experts on how to handle freefall, but don't take any instruction on how to land, what the canopy does, and why it does it for the part of the jump which will most likely kill you....and that, friends and fellow jumpers, makes zero sense to me.

Rob has aggressively pursued canopy flight, and I frankly admire him for it. While I will probably never go much smaller than I am right now, I intend to follow his lead - more high HnP, more working the canopy, more learning, more practice...and maybe that will save my life someday.
Just my .02 -

Ciels-
Michele


(This post was edited by Michele on May 29, 2003, 12:01 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 29, 2003, 11:59 AM
Post #119 of 493 (1611 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Michele] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>And got told I was pretty dumb for wasting that kind of money on something I "couldn't use" . . .

That's like someone telling you you're dumb for getting a cypres if you plan to pull. "Hey, if you never use it. . . ." Canopy control classes would have kept a lot of people alive last year, and would have kept even more people out of the hospital. They are one of the best investments you can make.


CanuckInUSA  (D 26396)

May 29, 2003, 12:04 PM
Post #120 of 493 (1605 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Michele] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
However, I will say that I took a canopy control class at 40 jumps. Took some heat about it, too. Well, actually, took some major heat for it.

That's just not right. I don't know about the curriculum of your canopy control course, but I took one given by Hooknswoop (mother nature messed with our weather so we never did do all that we wanted that day) and Hook was very good about trying to cater to the different skill levels of the students in the class (ranging from people with a handful of jumps off of AFF to a few with a hundred or more jumps).

Hooknswoop ... if you're out there and reading this. If you do hold another canopy control course sometime in the not too distant future. I would like to try and pick up from where we left off.


Michele  (B 26874)

May 29, 2003, 12:15 PM
Post #121 of 493 (1594 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CanuckInUSA] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi, Canuck...

I didn't say that the instructors gave me heat about it....matter of fact, Jim Slaton worked really hard because there was another, much higher jump number lady in the class with me. Jim held my hand and really taught me a ton of stuff in a way that I was able to comprehend it, as well as teaching her at her level, too. I know the instructors out there work hard to "speak into the listening" of the students...and are successful for the most part...and I very much appreciate them. The folks who gave me heat were people who were "peers".

My point was simply that peer pressure keeps people from spending the $$ to take the class, and instead they learn by doing. And sometimes those lessons are at a high cost - limbs broken, lives lost...

If I had one wish, it would be to incorporate a canopy control class before getting the A license...3 jumps on just canopy control or something...and then reassess the need for canopy wingload regulations. If one were to have the requirement of X on a canopy (and have it accountable...) before they got their A license, then perhaps some of this could be avoided. It would certainly take the peer pressure away from not taking the class early.

(And yes, I know there already are requirements, but they are easily lied about, whereas something like water training is not...something along those lines is what I mean)...

Ciels-
Michele


CanuckInUSA  (D 26396)

May 29, 2003, 12:22 PM
Post #122 of 493 (1587 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Michele] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I didn't say that the instructors gave me heat about it....

I guess I could have worded things a little better. I pretty much knew the people giving you flak were your peers and not the canopy control instructors. As far as the people who gave you flak are concerned, what business is it of theirs? You obviously wanted to better yourself and any good canopy control class should be able to give the students individualized instruction. So kudos to you for taking the initiative. Now if only more course were made available and if only more people would realized they could benefit from the instruction, we'd have less issues with people hurting themselves (in a perfect world of course). Angelic


sarge  (A 36)

May 29, 2003, 12:52 PM
Post #123 of 493 (1573 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Sarge...
Tell me why the PRO rating system will not work?
Quote:

Of course this is simply my opinion.

Actually, as SIM 7.2 currently reads, I see a practical correlation between meeting only a fraction of the PRO requirements therein to owning and flying a canopy at a specified wingloading. I will comment on proficiency in canopy control skills in just a moment.

First of all there is no PRO requirement for Open Field and Level 1 Demos. Since the only requirement for these catagory of jumps is a D license.
It appears that many landings we perform however at most Dzs fall into the Level 2 Demo class (SIM Table 7.A) considering the size of the congested popular landing area and the distance we land from other jumpers? There appears to be an inherent contradiction, in that a student/novice *can also land in that same congested landing area. (*note, "Can also land" because why? -- we make a subjective / objective determination of that jumpers canopy skills / behavior / attitude and decide whether this is acceptable) -Self Policing

Of course like I've said before Dzs make their own rules such as having a designated 'D' license landing area, which has been established at this or that DZ. (the rest I can think of specify 'Experienced Jumpers') -Self Policing

Secondly, the new D license requirements (ie:500 jumps) should satisfy the bare minimum jump numbers that I tend to agree with and as we have discussed. Considering only jump numbers as a critereon, the jump number PRO requirement does not exempt people like me who still only have an A license. But in this scenario it is jump numbers we are strictly assessing, not canopy skills. -Regulation

Which brings me to Canopy Skill demonstration. Yes, by all means, and what I have agreed with you and many all along is that there should be a mechanism in place to clarify strictly 'canopy control skills.' Now, the 'D' requires a jumper to make 25 landings within 2 meters of center. Easy enough. So with 500 accumulated jumps and 25 aforementioned landings... I think that should suffice.

The reason the PRO swoopers are crashing less, I believe, is because organizers have become more discriminating about who they admit as competitors. It's their show, and they wanna look good- crashes are spectacular but they don't glamorize swooping. ---- You don't have to be PRO Rated to compete (although I am aware the FAA requires this for some beach competitions) My point is that the competitors have proven their skills and saftey consciousness to organizers and fellow competitors. -self policing

Or even better yet, find the compromise between the USPA regulation and self policing. Each of us has a voice. Voice it to the DZO / S&TA, geez, a few years ago people started getting the idea to formalize free-fly training, found out there was a demand and that there was $$ in it. Whoola! Maybe this will come to pass as more people become highly skilled and share with their friends, and then they with theirs... etc ad infinitum.

I believe the same is true in the canopy disciplines, CRW, swooping, accuracy. The more skilled pilots become abundant, the more available and accessible training and advice will be shared.

In closing, (finally) I do not see a PRO rating as a panacea or band-aid for canopy incidents. I propose that a measure of self policing and USPA regulation 'should' find acceptance with Dzos to establish policies that work in concert with safety consciousness and skill assessment. The new D license requirement sounds like a good starting point, designated landing areas and finally some local system of skills assessment as appropriate.


cgross

May 29, 2003, 1:06 PM
Post #124 of 493 (1565 views)
Shortcut
Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

I notice we all talk about what people do to themselves, but do you know my biggest fear??? People flying canopies they can't control, and either them hitting me on approach, or on the ground.

People often make the argument that they are only endangering themselves, and that is BS. It is time we stop this shit.

IMO


Zenister  (A 42)

May 29, 2003, 1:50 PM
Post #125 of 493 (1543 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cgross] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I notice we all talk about what people do to themselves, but do you know my biggest fear??? People flying canopies they can't control, and either them hitting me on approach, or on the ground.

People often make the argument that they are only endangering themselves, and that is BS. It is time we stop this shit.

and of course mandatory jump number /wingloading regulation will do NOTHING to change that.. canopy control instruction WILL..


Premier skybytch  (D License)

May 29, 2003, 1:55 PM
Post #126 of 493 (1363 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sarge] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Or even better yet, find the compromise between the USPA regulation and self policing.
USPA and the BSR's are how we police ourselves, especially when the problem in question goes beyond what is happening at one or two dz's.

In reply to:
I believe the same is true in the canopy disciplines, CRW, swooping, accuracy. The more skilled pilots become abundant, the more available and accessible training and advice will be shared.
Right. How many more broken femurs, broken hips, broken faces and deaths will there be between now and the time that skilled pilots/teachers are available at every dz in the US?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 29, 2003, 2:18 PM
Post #127 of 493 (1351 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

>and of course mandatory jump number /wingloading regulation will
> do NOTHING to change that..

Nonsense. People with 500 jumps are, on average, better canopy pilots than people with 100 jumps. To deny that makes your position pretty untenable. It is the basic reason we have jump number requirements for licenses, instructional ratings and things like PRO ratings.


sarge  (A 36)

May 29, 2003, 2:19 PM
Post #128 of 493 (1348 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>USPA and the BSR's are how we police ourselves, >especially when the problem in question goes >beyond what is happening at one or two dz's.

Perhaps... However, what I'm referring to is the lack of consistency in DZ cultures that results from less clearly defined standards set by by the USPA in BSRs. I'm suggesting a more harmonious acquaintence between the the entities that is less likely open to interpretation and loopholes.

> Right. How many more broken femurs, broken >hips, broken faces and deaths will there be >between now and the time that skilled >pilots/teachers are available at every dz in the US?

My suggestion on that point is intended that, it will do nothing to prevent those things but that it will further force the issue to be brought more into focus if something isn't done. I agree a solution is needed now, not later, but the solution appears elusive, yes?

This is only a prediction, as is yours...

Also, what I was trying to suggest to the entrepeneurs in our viewing audience is that it could be a strategy used by the most skilled and industrious canopy pilots to persuade their Dzo to institute madatory canopy skills courses or canopy skill check-outs as a way of avoiding mandatory minimum canopy sizes or types at their DZ.

The insurance industry will figure out theres a hell of a lot of $$ they can still get out of the DZos yet!!!


rhino  (D 22500)

May 29, 2003, 2:39 PM
Post #129 of 493 (1338 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So suddenly they WILL pay attention?

If more of an emphasis is put on canopy flight yes...


Premier skybytch  (D License)

May 29, 2003, 2:54 PM
Post #130 of 493 (1330 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sarge] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
However, what I'm referring to is the lack of consistency in DZ cultures that results from less clearly defined standards set by by the USPA in BSRs. I'm suggesting a more harmonious acquaintence between the the entities that is less likely open to interpretation and loopholes.
I'm confused. Can you repeat that using smaller words?

In reply to:
My suggestion on that point is intended that, it will do nothing to prevent those things but that it will further force the issue to be brought more into focus if something isn't done. I agree a solution is needed now, not later,
but the solution appears elusive, yes?
Not to me. The fact that the ISP - which includes extensive canopy control training - is still not being taught at every dz out there proves to me that "education" isn't going to solve the problem fast enough.

imho, for now the solution is to keep high wingloadings out of the hands of newer skydivers until they've either a) gotten enough experience/training to safely land what they want to fly in any conditions or b) gotten to a set number of jumps at which they are considered "expert" and can do what they want. Since a D licensed jumper is considered by most to be an "expert", and soon you'll need 500 jumps to get the D number... 500 jumps seems like a logical cut off point.


mikkey  (D License)

May 29, 2003, 3:00 PM
Post #131 of 493 (1327 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

This thread is now back exactly where we have been before. Everybody is personalising it: "look at me I have x jumps and y wing loading and I am perfectly safe" and we have of course the argument: "regulation is not flexible enough - education is" bla, bla, bla, bla.
Well, the issue is:
1) There are lot of regulations on the jump plane, on the ground, in regard to the equipment (why can't I jump PdF products in the US - it is not TSO's). and in regard to what you can do in free fall (including NUMBER OF JUMPS) and what it takes to get a licenses including stuff like displays (INCLUDING NUMBER OF JUMPS). But we do not want to regulate canopies even with the number of people getting killed and injured?
2) You want to do anything about it and you want something that actually can be implemented? Well you have to do include some kind of ratio between jumps and wing loading. It is not perfect but it is the only way.
I find it sad if the sport is getting "back" to a reputation of being suicidal. I actually been called a bad father because I took up jumping again. I want to be in a safe sport (or as safe as possible).

I am now in my mid-40's, when I first started I was 19. I can tell you that I was a young fool at the time who knew it all, was able to do it all Crazy and I nearly kille myself. I have a very different attitude to the sport now and I still make mistakes and have "brain locks" - which is why I keep my wing loading conservative. So when some 100 jump wonder aged around 20 writes here how perfectly safe they are under a HP canopy - I just remember how I used to think.
Anyway, like it or not, Ron has the only sensible approach even if it is not perfect - if you want to do something about the problem.

PS: Have a collegue who also jumps - and has several hundre jumps. Jumps a Sabre 150 conservatively loaded aroudn 1.1 I think. He wanted to down size until recently. Then had a bad landing due to a simple mistake on landing - and got very bruised (and lucky it was not more then that). He has now put the down sizing on hold. Go figure...


sarge  (A 36)

May 29, 2003, 4:04 PM
Post #132 of 493 (1311 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'm confused. Can you repeat that using smaller words?

That the BSRs could be more specific to recommend wingloadings/canopy design related to assessed skill level achievements. Additionally, based on yours and my observation that education is not a sole solution to heal this 'canopy epidemic.' That furthermore, Dzos could be 'influenced' to support the BSRs. Such as what I have already suggested and in one way you have reiterated:

"500 jumps seems like a logical cut off point." ~SkyBytch

Geez!? where do I sound like I don't wish we could stop bytching and moaning and make something happen? I said before, I think its a pandoras box. Our friendly local Dz seems like the most logical and direct source to throw a tourniquet on this gushing artery! But for some reason, theres a lot of them that are just winging-it, yes? or maybe not?

All I'm saying in effect is, there is no substitute for experience and training can make the learning experience a lot less painful or fatal. I always say its not what you know; its what you don't know thats going to kill you!

Your doing your part, I'm doing what I can, Ron his, et al, and there you have it... Just talk... opinions... so what?

For now, I'm gonna watch my ass. I'm gonna keep on trying to keep an open mind and be grateful for the freedoms that we all enjoy until the rules change, then I'll adapt to those. No worries. If its about trying to keep you or me or that other jumper from becoming a statistic; I'll go along with it. Those a lot wiser and more experienced than you and I can't impliment a workable/practical solution to this problem yet...


Hooknswoop  (D License)

May 29, 2003, 4:18 PM
Post #133 of 493 (1303 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mikkey] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

I originally posted this under "Talking to a dead man". I have made changes and updates (the real meat is near the bottom). Sorry, again, for it being so discombobulated.

Different people advance their canopy control skills at different rates.

Different wing loadings, landing altitudes (Density Altitudes), and types of canopies, all result in different levels and types of performance a canopy produces.

The landing areas are different from DZ to DZ.

The higher the performance the canopy, the better the pilot needs to be to safely fly it (and maintain the same margin for error).

Good reactions, an understanding of aerodynamics that apply to canopies (How a canopy flies, theory), good depth perception, the ability to accurately evaluate your skills, eye-hand coordination, dexterity, and good situation awareness are important attributes to becoming a good canopy pilot.

The above skills aren't worth much without experience. Experience isn't worth much without the above skills.

The higher the performance the canopy, the easier it is to get injured.

The lower performance the canopy, the less likely the pilot will be injured. (An AFFI I knew would land his Manta 288 with the brakes release and not touch the toggles. He would PLF and get up.)

Too many skydivers feel they are the exception, better than their jumps numbers would suggest they are.

Too many skydivers want to be "the cool skydiver swooping down the beer line" before they are ready, in an effort to 'fit in' and be 'cool'. Just skydiving impresses 'whuffo' friends, to impress skydiving friends, you have to stand out, be better than your friends were when they had the number of jumps you do.

A canopy control class can improve a pilot's skills, reduce the chances of an incident and possibly allow a pilot to learn at a faster rate. This is not universal, and the impact depends on the instructor, the syllabus, and the student. They can be difficult to attend (cost/travel/time/availability).

Landing fatalities and injuries are bad for the jumper involved and the sport as a whole.

Self-regulation is better for the sport than if the FAA where to step in to make and enforce regulations. (Not likely to happen).

Fatalities and, to a lesser extent, injuries bring skydiving to the general public's and the FAA's attention, which is bad.

A high profile incident or high number of incidents may force the FAA to step in. I don't see this as likely, they don't have the budget to hire more people to enforce skydiving regulations.

A canopy regulation based solely on jump numbers would in some cases allow a jumper to progress too fast, some too slow (for their capabilities), and some just right. If such a system was adopted, there might be a rush to downsize and be 'grand fathered in', resulting in people flying canopies they are not ready for and resulting in the opposite goal than intended, i.e. more instead of less landing injuries/fatalities.

A canopy regulation that allowed waivers would have to have designated, qualified people to sign off the waiver. Not all DZ"s have qualified people that can make this judgment. Also a 'Canopy I/E' would be forced to say "no" a lot, making them unpopular/disliked, similar to S & TA's today. (I know that not all S & TA's are disliked, but it does happen where an S & TA has to say "no" and the person holds it against them) Not a job I would volunteer for, BTDT.

A DZO may choose to simply 'cap' the wing loading of their jumpers, avoiding having to make a decision about a pilot's skill and the suitability of the canopy they are/want to jump. (On this one, if a DZO doesn't want to address this issue and institutes a 'cap' (especially a ridiculously low cap) on wing loading, then either let the S & TA/Chief Instructor handle it, drop your GM ("Keeping skydivers skydiving"), or don't run a DZ.)

How many DZO's/S &TA's ground someone that shows up at their DZ and is obviously in over their head with their canopy, loosing their business? How many S & TA's are over-ruled by the DZO so the DZ can sell jump tickets?

Applying a fixed system to a range of people/abilities would be unfair to some. Jumping a canopy that is a size or two (or more) larger than the person can handle doesn't create an unsafe situation, jumping a canopy a size or two (or more) smaller than the person can handle does result in an unsafe situation.

If you are bored on your canopy, get your pro-rating with it. See how good you really are with it.

Landing injuries usually only injure the pilot making the mistake, they rarely injure others.

Tracking skills are not keeping pace with canopy performance.

Aircraft pilots are regulated because they can affect the public's safety. There is a big difference between a single seat and two seat ultra-light.

Creating a flexible system requires qualified evaluators and can be more work as people challenge it believing they are the exception. This is basically what happens now, and varies from DZ to DZ, but is informal with no guidelines. Also, the Instructor, DZO, S &TA, I/E, Chief Instructor, etc, must first watch the jumper fly and land to make a call on the pilot's abilities. I may not be possible for someone to watch the pilot for a few jumps and by then may be too late.

The more downsizing is regulated and restricted the less injuries/fatalities there will be. The more regulations and restrictions there are, the more they cut into the freedom and enjoyment and personal responsibility of skydiving. There has to be a happy medium between freedom and regulation. I think this issue parallels the much larger National Security/Personal Freedom debates sparked by 9/11. How much personal freedom are we willing to sacrifice in the name of security? The United States accepts 50,000 deaths each year on the roadways as acceptable for the freedom of travel and the speeds allowed. How many little crosses do you see on the sides of roads? How many serious accidents have you slowly driven past? How much more are you willing to pay for a safer car?

Is what we have now insufficient?

If yes, is a good solution to write some guidelines for DZO's/S & TA's/Instructors, etc. to help make these decisions and guide jumper's decisions on canopy choices?

What should our 'goal' be? How many injuries per jumps is acceptable?

How many fatalities under good canopies per jumps is acceptable?

How do we achieve that goal without eliminating/significantly reducing the freedoms that help make skydiving what it is?

Any sort of change will restrict some people from downsizing, making it unpopular with the people affected. Even some people that wouldn't be affected would be against it, as they would be against any further regulation.

A first jump student focuses on the free-fall, which they perceive as the dangerous part of the skydive (hitting the ground at 120 mph), and put less emphasis on the canopy flight portion of the skydive (which has proven to be more dangerous than free-fall for injuries and fatalities).

Initial Basic canopy training is very important and sets the tone for a skydiver’s advancement as a canopy pilot. I have done numerous “learning tandems”, that focused equally on free-fall skills and canopy skills. These initial tandems, if done correctly, combined with a program that puts at least 50% of the training emphasis on canopy control, produces a student that is better equipped to continue learning at a faster pace. They are also safer than a student that was talked down on the radio a few times, then allowed to fly the canopy unassisted. Additionally, downsizing while under the supervision of an Instructor to within one size of their first canopy closes the gap between the large F-11 student canopy and what skydivers generally buy for their first canopy.

The FAA draws parallels between skydiving and flying, i.e. “Pilot in Command, Parachutist in Command”.

The number of hours a pilot has is considered an indication of their abilities and experience. Flight time is logged under many different categories. Flying a multi-engine aircraft in actual Instrument conditions (in the clouds) demonstrates a higher level of proficiency and capability than flying a single engine VFR (in clear weather). 2000 hours of buzzing around (pleasure flying) in a Cessna 172 VFR isn’t the same as 2000 hours flying a King Air for a charter company. Having 2000 hours in a Cessna 172 doesn’t mean a pilot is ready to hop in a King Air and go fly.

100 skydives over 2 years isn’t the same as 100 skydives over 6 months.

To be licensed to go fly a Cessna 172 around takes a minimum of 40 flight hours, a medical (that has to be kept current) and a written test. Then an oral and practical test with a Designated Examiner. The test isn’t a 20 question test that you can keep taking (for free) over and over until you pass, it is something like 60 questions from a bank of 700-ish questions and it costs $60.00 (usually) to take it. If you fail, you have to get signed off by a CFI to take it again, and there is a minimum time between tests. If a pilot wishes to fl a complex airplane (retractable gear, flaps, and a constant speed propeller, Driver, correct any of this that is wrong), they must receive additional training from a CFI and get an endorsement from said CFI in their logbook. If a pilot wishes to fly a High performance, multi-engine aircraft, or fly under IFR flight rules, etc, it requires additional training to reflex the additional complexity/speed/environment that the pilot will be operating in. In addition the Instructor must have additional training to teach other pilots thee more advanced skills.

The USPA “A” license card has spaces for certain canopy drills/maneuvers, that must be performed prior to getting an “A” license. Until these maneuvers are completed, the skydiver is limited to jumping with a Coach or Instructor, or solo. This is a change from the old “A” license requirements, which were limited to accuracy requirements. USPA recognized the need for additional initial canopy training. The requirement was implemented (initially the ISP was mandatory, but DZO’s protested and the USPA folded and made the ISP optional). Once the “A” license is complete, the only additional license requirements for canopy control is accuracy. The 1-20 jump canopy training gap was identified and fixed. The 20+ canopy training gap has been identified (it is hard to argue that canopy skills are keeping pace with canopy development and use) but has not been fixed.

I believe a combination of regulations and education is the solution to reducing the number of injuries and fatalities caused by mistakes made while flying fully functional canopys

I propose USPA develop a series of canopy skills requirements for the “B”, “C”, and “D” licenses. These requirements would need to be flex-able enough to allow for aggressive canopy pilots and conservative canopy pilots alike. They would include canopy class room training, practical exercises, a written and practical test. I also propose USPA implement (grand-fathering in current license holders), canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the “A” through “D” license. As each license is obtained, the skydiver may jump higher performance canopys. These restrictions would have to be well researched, taking into account canopy type, landing altitude, wing loading, etc. The canopy matrix restrictions could be waiver-able to a certain, defined degree to allow a skydiver that wishes to advance more quickly, puts in the effort, and demonstrates the ability. A skydiver could also earn a ‘canopy restricted “B” through “D” license if they choose not to demonstrate the proficiency required for the next license, similar to a VFR commercial pilots license, for example.

When USPA implemented the “A” license canopy skills requirements, they correctly figured that Instructors were qualified to teach these basic canopy skills, without further training or certification of the Instructor. As a skydiver progresses through their skydiving careers, their initial Instructor that taught them their basic canopy control skills may not be qualified or have the skills to teach more advance canopy control without further training and/or certification.

Therefore, I further propose the creation of the Canopy Instructor rating (USPA should like this, more $$$ for them). This rating would be similar to the I rating (but without reducing the standard when DZO’s need more staff). Whereas the AFFI/ SLI rating courses focus on free-fall skills and instruction, the CI rating would focus on canopy skills and Instruction. A weekend course attended after completing a pre-course card, where a Canopy Instructor Candidate learns how to teach advanced canopy control (any instruction post-AFF is advanced in my book), and must demonstrate the ability to perform and teach advanced canopy control. A thought would be to simply add canopy piloting skills and canopy instruction skills to the current I rating courses. This brings up the dilemma of a great free-fall Instructor and flyer that can’t fly a canopy or teach canopy piloting very well not being able to teach free-fall skills, what a waste. Also, a CI would not be working with pre “A” license students, but licensed skydivers, and don’t require the free-fall skills and teaching ability to teach advance canopy skills. So the CI rating would be similar to the Coach rating, except focusing on canopy skills, not free-fall skills, and be as difficult to earn as the AFFI rating used to be.

Thinking about this from another angle, how would you (a hypothetical question), as an Instructor (you may be an Instructor, we haven’t gotten to the hypothetical part yet), take someone from 0 skydives to 1000, downsizing and progressing as a canopy pilot, with the eventual goal of high performance landings, with the goal of zero injuries along the way? Assume you can spend as much time as necessary in the classroom and jump with them as much as you need to reach this goal. Your ‘student’ can afford to downsize/side step canopys as you see fit.

In response to an earlier post:

I watched Rhino (Rob) fly recently in CA, last time I have seen him fly before that was several years ago in TX. He tried to toggle hook a Tri 150. It didn't go so good. I berated him, he got mad, then he calmed down, realized that high speed landings aren't easy and set about learning. He currently flys very well, with his first reaction is to abort or bail out of a hook turn, instead of pushing a marginal situation. I never saw him get in the corner or show any signs that he is in over his head on his canopy. He has put in the effort to fly the canopy he does. He accepts criticism without letting ego get in the way, heck he asks for people to point out his mistakes. He has really calmed down and focused, if he continues with his current attitude and enthusiasm, I think he will continue to do very well. That is the key most people lack, they don't invest the tremendous amount of effort required.

This is a tremendously difficult, emotional, and complicated issue.

Hook


Premier skybytch  (D License)

May 29, 2003, 4:28 PM
Post #134 of 493 (1300 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sarge] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
That the BSRs could be more specific to recommend wingloadings/canopy design related to assessed skill level achievements.
The problem with assessed skill level achievements is that they can be faked/lied about. I know several PRO rated jumpers who got "signed off" without ever making the required jumps - both for their original rating and for recurrency. What's to stop Joe Instructor from signing off his 100 jumps buddy for something smaller when the newbie still can't land what he has?

In reply to:
Just talk... opinions... so what?
In Ron's case he's done far more than talk - he's already contacted USPA about the problem and possible solutions. By the end of this weekend I'll be able to claim the same; my letter will be going off to each of the members of the S&T committee on Sunday. I know of at least one more person planning to do the same.

Anyone who supports either wingloading to jump number regulation/guidelines/recommendations or increased canopy control training requirements or both should put their money where their mouth is and get their letters and emails out. Those who feel that this is all about grumpy old people trying to limit their freedom because of a few dead bodies should also express their views to the S&T committee.

We ain't gonna solve anything here; on that I agree with you 100%.


rhino  (D 22500)

May 29, 2003, 4:38 PM
Post #135 of 493 (1294 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Therefore, I further propose the creation of the Canopy Instructor rating

Hell of an idea!!


robskydiv  (D 26660)

May 29, 2003, 5:11 PM
Post #136 of 493 (1288 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

  Why not? I mean something has to be done.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

May 29, 2003, 5:38 PM
Post #137 of 493 (1277 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hell of an idea!!
I agree.

Thanks for posting a well thought out canopy education proposal, Derek. Mind if I incorporate some of it in my letter to the S&T committee?


Hooknswoop  (D License)

May 29, 2003, 6:13 PM
Post #138 of 493 (1268 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Have at it. Maybe you can put the parts you want into a 'read-able' form. I think I will send one too.

Hook


Michele  (B 26874)

May 29, 2003, 7:14 PM
Post #139 of 493 (1251 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Lisa, can you post the addresses for the S & T committee? I'll be happy to contribute my .02...and that is all I've got - no experience in this sport, so I don't think my voice will carry much weight...but rather a squeak than silence, you know?

Thanks!

Ciels-
Michele


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
May 29, 2003, 7:27 PM
Post #140 of 493 (1238 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

You know... I think this might just be a good enough cause to get this Canopy Nazi up and writing his first message to the BOD and the S&T committee.


Zenister  (A 42)

May 30, 2003, 12:26 AM
Post #141 of 493 (1223 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Re: perfect [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks Hook thats what ive been much less eloquently argue about, basing regulation on demonstrated ability, and not a simple numbers progression.

At 500 jumps you magically become an "adult skydiver" and can now fly whatever canopy you wish???

just in case anyone thinks this is about age it really isnt at all.

although younger skydivers (but certainly not only skydivers) DO want to be able to take higher risks, and find the edges of the envelope more than an older individual (who more likely to have kids and other responsibilities with higher priority than their need to take risks.)

and honestly wouldnt live my life as i do if i had other obligations however i do not, so i take risks everyday that others might think silly

most people think jumping out of planes is an unreasonable risk.
most skydivers dont base jump.
most rock climbers dont freeclimb.
out of all the people who drive motorcycles & autos only a very small percentage chose to do so at race tracks at high speeds....etc etc..

its really about proving you have the skills and knowledge to be able to fly in the manner you are with a reasonable level of safety. Defining reasonable is the very tricky part.

seems like the more we try to sell skydiving as something everyones grandmother should come do, the farther away we get from why people jumped out of airplanes in the first place.

"pencil whipping" anything is wrong, and will still occur no matter what the regs say, there are dishonest people everywhere but i'm not sure what that really has to do with this issue.

is everyone going to be content if for example in 2006 (after this BSR is emplaced and "fully enforced") when a comparable number of people as 2002 with jump numbers averaging 550 - 700 are injured & or die instead? or will we once again raise the out cry over the number of deaths and up the limits?

why not just have larger print on the waiver you sign where it says you understand you can die doing this?? and then emphasis that the more you know about it the less likely it is to happen...after that its all up to you to decide what risks you are willing to take.


Ron

May 30, 2003, 3:45 AM
Post #142 of 493 (1214 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Michele] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
(And yes, I know there already are requirements, but they are easily lied about, whereas something like
water training is not...something along those lines is what I mean

Water training is not easy to lie about?

Well I got my water traing at 1800 jumps almost 5 years after it was signed off...

So anything that requires just a sign off....Will get just signed off by some. Look at "pencil packs"

Thats why regulation is needed..It will get ignored at times as well...But it is harder to do if people actually look.

Ron


Ron

May 30, 2003, 3:54 AM
Post #143 of 493 (1212 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
and of course mandatory jump number /wingloading regulation will do NOTHING to change that.. canopy control
instruction WILL..

Not if people don't do it...So you would have to make it manditory...

I think Michele wrote that people made fun of her for taking a canopy control class...As long as that happens people will not just do it unless they have to. Also..As Rob pointed out just because people were tought...Does not mean they will learn, or remember...

So how do you plan to make it manditory, AND MAKE them learn and remember?

And it has to be a nationally used program...which even the current ISP is not.

So regulation will work...
Peer pressure has not, in fact it most of the time is the reverse.

USPA current training program is not being used everywhere...And it has been pointed out that people don't learn anyway. So training does not seem to work either.

But if you have a plan that covers all this...please let me know.

Bill, if you can come up with a "checkout" I am all for it...But the best I have seen so far is make them qualify for a PRO to be able to downsize....Hell the program already is there.

Ron


RozeAY  (D License)

May 30, 2003, 6:34 AM
Post #144 of 493 (1185 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that instruction is the best answer to canopy issues. The problem is that nobody will go out and make it happen. Instead, everybody sits around on dz.com and talks about how great it would be. Well, Ron has actually done something about it. And I think it is a very good idea. I also think that Bill's opt out option is an excellent idea.

There are obviously going to be tons of people that are going to hate this idea. But I think thats because people just aren't going to be willing to do their time on the 0-500 jump progression. And its because people want to start hooking/swooping/coming in with more speed on their own schedule. Right now, they can do it whenever and however they want. With this new system, they're going to have to wait or learn to do it with proper instruction. And thats why most people aren't going to like it.

I think Ron's proposal is an excellent guide to try and cut down on injury. It gives people plenty of time on lower wingloadings to learn to fly a canopy on their own. And for the people that don't want to or can't take a course or learn from a coach, it gives them some time and experience to learn as much as they can on lower wingloadings.

Here is the beauty of the "opt out system." If you want to really learn to fly your canopy through a course/coach/whatever the system may be, then with that coach you can opt out of the BSR requirements. With the coach's assistance you could get placed on another canopy track. But the key is to basically be an apprentice to the coach. It shouldn't be a free for all where once you take this course you have free reign to jump whatever you want. I think you should work with this coach. Together you would come up with a progression and what you should do and be able to do on each before you advance.

This way people who are serious about canopy flight can get coaching and learn to do higher performance stuff the right way. At the same time, those who want to do the same high-p stuff but aren't willing to learn the right way will have to wait until they have a little more experience. This will force them to learn on lower wingloadings before getting into higher ones. And finally for those people who don't care so much about higher performance landings, like me for example, won't really be affected.

I have 475 jumps with wingloadings of 1.2 and 1.3 with gear, weights, etc (which is my most recent downsize). I fit into Ron's proposal and am even under it. And these are just fine for me. Even if I was in a situation where I would have to fly a certain canopy a little longer than I would like I would still be fine with it. Because I know my abilities and flying x canopy a little longer isn't going to kill me. But there are some people out there that letting them get to x canopy too soon will kill them. So even if this BSR would affect you in a way you wouldn't like, hopefully there would be the opt out system so you could do something about it but more importantly it would be helping to save lives. Nothing else has worked this far. Hopefully this is something that will.


lauras  (D License)

May 30, 2003, 6:40 AM
Post #145 of 493 (1182 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey Hotpants.

1) What the hell are you doing posting at 3:54AM? Don't you ever sleep?!?

2) Additional BSRs re: canopy downsizing would probably be very helpful for the majority, but you'll always run into the "Rules? I don't need no stinkin' rules" crowd. Not a goddamn thing anyone can do about them except hope that they won't pound in right in front of you. I don't think it would matter what sport those particular people were involved in either ... reaction would be the same.

See ya Sunday at the crack house - I mean tunnel.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

May 30, 2003, 7:43 AM
Post #146 of 493 (1160 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Re: perfect [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
just in case anyone thinks this is about age it really isnt at all.

although younger skydivers (but certainly not only skydivers) DO want to be able to take higher risks, and find the edges of the envelope more than an older individual (who more likely to have kids and other responsibilities with higher priority than their need to take risks.)
While I mostly agree that jumpers over a certain age tend to be more conservative than jumpers under a certain age, when I say "younger" jumpers I'm not talking about physical age, I'm talking about time in sport. Calling someone with 400 jumps a student or novice doesn't seem right... "younger" isn't the best word to use but it's better than some others.

Most jumpers hit 500 at around 2 - 3 years in the sport. By the time you've been in the sport for 2 - 3 years you've likely seen some shit (or had shit happen to you), so yeah, I'd think around 500 jumps to be a magic number.

And considering that within a few months you'll have to have 500 jumps to get a USPA D license - often referred to as an "expert" or "master" license... yeah, 500 jumps is about the point you magically become an adult skydiver.

I think even those of us strongly supporting this idea agree that there are some younger jumpers who will be able to safely exceed the proposed requirements. Hook's proposal addresses this by allowing for individual waivers for those who show the desire and put forth the effort required to safely do so.

It also addresses jumpers like me who will never go above a 1.2 loading, ever. I think all jumpers seeking a higher license should be required to attend the canopy control training for that license instead of allowing for canopy restricted licenses though. Everyone should know how to do a high performance landing - the ability to safely bleed off the extra speed may be a lifesaver someday (think downwind in 10 mph winds on a bad spot).

zenister... please join us in writing to the S&T committee and let them know your opinion on this. There is no easy answer and they're going to need to hear from all sides.


samp76  (A 43239)

May 30, 2003, 8:08 AM
Post #147 of 493 (1145 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] [In reply to] Can't Post

Ron,

But what is there to keep skydivers from keeping their current canopy loaded @ 1:1 for 500 jumps and then go to to a w/l of 2:1??

-Sam-


rhino  (D 22500)

May 30, 2003, 8:11 AM
Post #148 of 493 (1140 views)
Shortcut
Re: [samp76] [In reply to] Can't Post

What is there?

Nothing other than the DZO. Hopefully they have prepared themselves.


Ron

May 30, 2003, 8:16 AM
Post #149 of 493 (1134 views)
Shortcut
Re: [samp76] [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
But what is there to keep skydivers from keeping their current canopy loaded @ 1:1 for 500 jumps and
then go to to a w/l of 2:1??

Nothing....

But what I am wishing is that they will learn enough not to kill themselves....The problem is right now they can get them at 100 jumps.

This delays them while they learn some more basic life saving skills.

Do you not find it interesting that only one guy with more than 500 jumps died last year "hooking it"...And that guy was stoned?

Ron


jlmiracle  (D License)

May 30, 2003, 8:20 AM
Post #150 of 493 (1130 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] [In reply to] Can't Post

I think before anyone downsizes they have to watch a video. "Down Sizing Gone Bad", also to include "Hook Turns Gone Bad". I think when ANY jumper decides to downsize, and or try hook turns, they have to watch the video, blood, guts, bones, and all.

There has to be enough video out there of bad incidents that can be complied.

It sucks to see that stuff but that's reality and sometimes just hearing about people's mistakes aren't enough, you need to see them.

Judy


Ron

May 30, 2003, 8:52 AM
Post #151 of 493 (1516 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jlmiracle] [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There has to be enough video out there of bad incidents that can be complied.

It sucks to see that stuff but that's reality and sometimes just hearing about people's mistakes aren't
enough, you need to see them.

When I used to pull low....I had a guy come up to me and ask if I have ever seen a bounce...I told him no. He told me to not do them until I have seen one...Now that I have see some...I don't like to pull low.

Of course back then I didn't listen...So, two guys came up to me. One said If you bounce I will piss on your body while it is still warm. The other said...Pull low again, and I will kick your ass. Then about 6 others said they would help him.

I stoped pulling low....Well below 1500. Now that I have almost 3,000 jumps...I pull at 2,500...Funny huh?

Ron


rhino  (D 22500)

May 30, 2003, 8:53 AM
Post #152 of 493 (1515 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jlmiracle] [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think before anyone downsizes they have to watch a video. "Down Sizing Gone Bad", also to include "Hook Turns Gone Bad". I think when ANY jumper decides to downsize, and or try hook turns, they have to watch the video, blood, guts, bones, and all.

That is an idea. Although watching it and actually bouncing are no where near the same.

Rhino


jlmiracle  (D License)

May 30, 2003, 8:58 AM
Post #153 of 493 (1514 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm willing to try just about anything to keep people uninjured, whether it be video, threat of bodily harm, or whatever.

This is going to sound very selfish but tough shit, it's not fair to the rest of us who want to keep jumping when someone who knows better goes out and jumps something beyond their experience, gets hurt and now we have to shut down for a while so the helicopter can land and take them away.

Judy


Jimbo  (D License)

May 30, 2003, 9:16 AM
Post #154 of 493 (1502 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Quote:
That is an idea. Although watching it and actually bouncing are no where near the same.

I agree. Maybe if someone could capture the screams, and the crying, and the horrified looks of the witnesses of the accident, maybe that might help to pump up the realism level.

Just a thought.

-
Jim


(This post was edited by Jimbo on May 30, 2003, 9:17 AM)


Zenister  (A 42)

May 30, 2003, 10:52 AM
Post #155 of 493 (1474 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jlmiracle] [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'm willing to try just about anything to keep people uninjured, whether it be video, threat of bodily harm, or whatever.

This is going to sound very selfish but tough shit, it's not fair to the rest of us who want to keep jumping when someone who knows better goes out and jumps something beyond their experience, gets hurt and now we have to shut down for a while so the helicopter can land and take them away.

so you wont mind when someone with 602 jumps causes you the same delay then?? or will you join th crowd once again and say the restrictions are to low and need to be raised to protect people from themselves even more??


rhino  (D 22500)

May 30, 2003, 11:01 AM
Post #156 of 493 (1469 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Jimbo] [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I agree. Maybe if someone could capture the screams, and the crying, and the horrified looks of the witnesses of the accident, maybe that might help to pump up the realism level.

Bouncing was good for me actually. Slowed me down and smartened me up.

Video wouldn't have done anything I don't think.

Rhino


jlmiracle  (D License)

May 30, 2003, 11:04 AM
Post #157 of 493 (1466 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] [In reply to] Can't Post

If they did something stupid, yeah, it will piss me off. I don't care if they have 10,000 jumps - then it will really piss me off because they definately should know better.

When I have jumped with people who do stupid shit, I tell them that when they get hurt for doing stupid shit, where you land is where you lie. I suggest you jump with a cell phone so you can call 911 yourself.

The problem with attaching a jump number to a wingloading is some people have 500 jumps in 1 year and some have 500 jumps in 15 years.

Not every landing injury is the "canopy pilots" fault. Funky winds come out of no where and we can't see them, but when you seem someone jumping something too small and frap in, I don't feel sorry for them one bit.

As far as restrictions and trying to make this a BSR, I would love to see it, but there are too many variables to make it happen. Canopies fly differently at different elevations. Everyone I know that has flown a Nitron said it flys big.

The DZO, S&TA, and instructors and just going to have to ground the dumbasses of the world. Yeah the DZO is going to lose a little business, but you lose alot more money with lawsuits and dead skydivers.

I've always looked at the Darwin award winners as natural selection. I love my skydiving family and I don't want to see ANYONE get hurt or die.

Judy


(This post was edited by jlmiracle on May 30, 2003, 11:09 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 30, 2003, 1:06 PM
Post #158 of 493 (1427 views)
Shortcut
Re: [samp76] [In reply to] Can't Post

>But what is there to keep skydivers from keeping their current
>canopy loaded @ 1:1 for 500 jumps and then go to to a w/l of 2:1??

Nothing, but it's better than the system we have now, where they stay at 1:1 for 39 jumps then go with a loading of 2:1. The 500 jump guy will survive that a lot more often than the 39 jump guy will.


livendive  (D 21415)

May 30, 2003, 2:28 PM
Post #159 of 493 (1402 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So regulation will work...
Peer pressure has not, in fact it most of the time is the reverse.

One need not look to regulation to make a safety program become popular. Consider the treatment AODs got in the 80's then look at the CYPRES. If you can design a canopy control progression system/class that *works well*, eventually, taking it will become the norm.

Forcing another money-sucking class or tiered wingloading requirements both go against what skydiving is all about. How many more requirements does USPA have to implement before the FAA would be the lesser of two evils?

Establish a system that works yet remains voluntary and you will eventually accomplish your goal. Try to cram it down people's throats and all you'll get is resentment.

Blues,
Dave


crewkeith  (B 24861)

May 30, 2003, 3:19 PM
Post #160 of 493 (1385 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

i have been jumping three years now i got a job at the dz so i could watch the swoopers land. i worked this job for almost two years. i watched 5 injuries in this time and luckily no deaths.i have seen the really bad pilots get lucky and the good pilots get unlucky. yet the need remains to go fast and take chances. what regulation could take that out of someone?


(This post was edited by crewkeith on May 30, 2003, 3:21 PM)


rmsmith

May 30, 2003, 5:07 PM
Post #161 of 493 (1367 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
That is an idea. Although watching it and actually bouncing are no where near the same.
Actually, you don't have to see it...hearing the impact and the crys, moans, call 911!, etc. is enough for most folks.


rhino  (D 22500)

May 30, 2003, 7:15 PM
Post #162 of 493 (1346 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rmsmith] [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Actually, you don't have to see it...hearing the impact and the crys, moans, call 911!, etc. is enough for most folks.

True.. But it means more if you have actually bounced.

Rhino


nathaniel

May 30, 2003, 7:49 PM
Post #163 of 493 (1335 views)
Shortcut
Re: [livendive] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Establish a system that works yet remains voluntary and you will eventually accomplish your goal. Try to cram it down people's throats and all you'll get is resentment.

Amen.

I can guarantee to you the more regulations we have the less injury there will be because with more regulation there will be fewer people in the sport. IMO the USPA would be foolish to squander the freedom and trust it has earned for its members by micromanaging them...I for one get enough of that between weekends.

I distinguish different points from this debate

1. some people take more risks than others
my opinion: error #0, no error. we all stand out from the mainstream b/c we participate in a risky sport

2. some people don't respect others' choices about risk levels
my opinion: no one should be forced to accept a higher risk level than s/he prefers. so for instance we should keep designated swoop alleys or separate landing areas to let people interested in high risk landings do so with minimal impact to those not so inclined. Likewise we should not impose a rarified whuffo attitude on people willing to accept more risk than us

3. people sometimes misjudge the risks they take--some people consistently misjudge the risks they take
my opinion: the right way to address this is education, and it is unfortunate that some people won't learn before they hurt themselves. but there are steps we can take to improve risk awareness, like encouraging coaching, safety day, etc. While the USPA is still popular it could try excommunicating members that take too many dumb risks...but I don't think it would be popular for very long if it did so.

4. regulation is not the USPA's trump card
my opinion: Heavy-handed regulation is the last alternative and is seldom justified, imo. keep in mind that the USPA is a very democratic organization in the sense that its regulatory power is directly linked to its popularity. it becomes irrelevant if it makes too many unpopular rules as people and dzs start dropping out and forming rival associations or just leaving the sport.

nathaniel


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 30, 2003, 9:20 PM
Post #164 of 493 (1321 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

>no one should be forced to accept a higher risk level than s/he prefers.
> so for instance we should keep designated swoop alleys or separate
>landing areas to let people interested in high risk landings do so with
> minimal impact to those not so inclined.

Agreed; many DZ's do this, and I think it's a good idea.

>Likewise we should not impose a rarified whuffo attitude on people
>willing to accept more risk than us.

We do this now. We tell people they can't jump with just one parachute; they can't repack their reserves unless they are a rigger; they can't open below 2000 feet; they can't jump at night without a light or without a certain license; they can't do demos without a PRO rating. I don't think that's "imposing a rarefied whuffo attitude on people"; I think all those regulations have done more good than harm.

>the right way to address this (misjudging risks) is education, and it is
>unfortunate that some people won't learn before they hurt themselves.
>but there are steps we can take to improve risk awareness, like
>encouraging coaching, safety day, etc. While the USPA is still popular
> it could try excommunicating members that take too many dumb
>risks...but I don't think it would be popular for very long if it did so.

I agree here. But if you're talking about essentially permanently grounding people who do stupid stuff under canopy, wouldn't requiring those same people to simply jump larger canopies be a better solution? Aren't we better off with too-aggressive new jumpers under larger canopies rather than kicked out of the sport?

(I realize that kicking them out of USPA would not really ground them, but in some places it would essentially have that effect, and that would be its only purpose to begin with.)

>4. regulation is not the USPA's trump card

I agree here too. Education is their trump card; the trick is how to get jumpers to take advantage of that. How do we encourage compliance with the ISP, which is the first step in learning to fly a canopy? How do we get the jumpers who need it to get advanced canopy control training? Peer pressure doesn't seem to work. Regulation would work (i.e. require it if they want to get out of a conservative mandatory size progression.) A lot of the ways we use now for other skills don't work - there are no "canopy organizers" who won't let you on the dive if your canopy control skills aren't there, as there are for RW and freefly.


Michele  (B 26874)

May 30, 2003, 9:57 PM
Post #165 of 493 (1317 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
How do we get the jumpers who need it to get advanced canopy control training?
How do you decide who "needs" it? I was seen throwing myself all around the ground, sometimes having difficulty standing back up...and only one suggested I take the training...(and that was via a pm and really rather nasty...and my response to that person was if you saw me, why didn't you bother to come help me??? To which there was no answer...).

So how and when do you determine who needs it? To give quade his due, he did spend a morning with me helping me understand basics, as did John Brasher - and I learned a ton from both of those men. But if there was ever a femur waiting to break, it was me. For christ's sake, I was on the bet list of how soon I would break....and told only after I had taken the class that this list even exists.

You know, if it was that obvious, why was I never encouraged - in fact, harshly discouraged from - taking the class???

So what do you do, Bill? Wait for someone to downsize and break, and then tell them to go take a class? Or help them arrange it? Introduce them to those canopy pilots who are willing to help? (oops, sorry, I'm ranting a little, but I am still furious about this)...

I was not even told about the canopy control class during AFF. At no point was it ever recommended to me that I do it immediately off student status.

Quote:
Peer pressure doesn't seem to work
peer pressure is not "take the class", peer pressure is "go buy all new kit", "you'll grow into it", "you'll be color coordinated, you'll look cool", chicks dig scars". Peer pressure is being invited on an 8 way when you're right off student status; peer pressure is "learn to sit fly right now - c'mon, let's go"; it's "a load in 10 minutes? Sure, I'll be there" without ever once considering your ability to land in those specific conditions...

You know what? There is no peer pressure to take a class. None. Matter of fact, the pressure I experienced was "don't take the class"...I still get given some grief about the number of HnP's I have in my 64 jumps - 11 to date, soon to be more - because that's not "fun"...well, maybe not the same kind of fun, but it will provide me the way to have more fun.

I mean, how fun is a hospital bed? Or coma? That can't be any fun...the sky will wait until I learn...but there are people given grief about actively seeking canopy control instruction, and therein lies the problem.

O.K., I just read this over. I am indeed ranting....and it's not directed at anyone in specific, I promise. Just don't know what else to do. There will be people who read this, think "oh, not me", and end up in the incidents.

Some people who I admire for chasing canopy control? Rhino. Clownburner. Am I proud of it? Absolutely. Do I need much more? Without any kind of doubt. I spoke with Clint at the boogie, and told him It's time for a check-up, and he and I (or one of the instructors) will be getting together soon for that.

Education works. But it only works if one gets it, and one can only get it if one knows it exists.

And with that, I think I will try to step off the soapbox....sorry....

Ciels-
Michele


(This post was edited by Michele on May 30, 2003, 10:17 PM)


nathaniel

May 30, 2003, 9:57 PM
Post #166 of 493 (1317 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
if you're talking about essentially permanently grounding people who do stupid stuff under canopy, wouldn't requiring those same people to simply jump larger canopies be a better solution? Aren't we better off with too-aggressive new jumpers under larger canopies rather than kicked out of the sport?

I had a great economics professor; she insisted that car manufacturers are not encouraging safe driving since they put things like airbags and seat belts in cars that make it easier to survive a crash. drivers willing to take a certain amount of personal-risk now can drive more crazy-like at the same personal-risk level.

How will influencing a jumper's canopy choice affect the jumper's risk preferences? could bigger canopies provide a greater illusion of safety (in SUV-style) and make jumpers more risk-loving?

btw I wasn't serious about excommunication...that would lead to holy wars.

nathaniel


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

May 30, 2003, 10:11 PM
Post #167 of 493 (1312 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Michele] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So how and when do you determine who needs it? To give quade his due, he did spend a morning with me helping me understand basics, as did John Brasher - and I learned a ton from both of those men. But if there was ever a femur waiting to break, it was me. For christ's sake, I was on the bet list of how soon I would break....and told only after I had taken the class that this list even exists.

This is an excellent post. All of it. Because it addresses part of why people don't take canopy control. It's not always easy to get.

You can go to the DZ and get an FJC. But getting canopy coaching can be a whole lot harder. People talk about you, but there isn't as much information about what's a good teaching structure.

Read Bill Booth's story about his first jump course for an example of how canopy control class is for some people now.

Yes, they're clueless. But, you know, some people are. If you give them a clue, they'll figure out what to do with it, but they just weren't born knowing where there should be clues.

Wendy W.
(born clueless)


mustard  (D 14580)

May 31, 2003, 6:04 AM
Post #168 of 493 (1297 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Michele] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I was not even told about the canopy control class during AFF. At no point was it ever recommended to me that I do it immediately off student status.

I agree with Wendy, this was an excellent post. Here I am catching a few minutes to see what has been posted here since yesterday, I'm on my way to the DZ. But I can't help but respond to this (above).

Michele, I am an older and wiser version of you under canopy. Even with hundreds of jumps, I was an accident waiting to happen. There was no canopy control class for me back in 1991.

What puzzles me is why you were actively discouraged from taking the class. Did anyone actually desire to see you get hurt? I had a sense of that about me when I was first learning to fly a canopy. Nobody ever offered any instruction at all to me, even when I asked. What's going on here? Are there skydivers out there who are waiting for what they see as us inevitably getting hurt? If so, this is really sad.

Michele, you are getting an education about how to fly a canopy because you recognize the need for it. There's really no other way to educate people, if you know you need it and there's an avenue to get it, then you'll get it. That's what you are doing. I believe that your posts are educating others as well. This is the beginning we need, and small beginnings can change the world.


diverdriver  (D 19012)

May 31, 2003, 9:19 AM
Post #169 of 493 (1282 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rmsmith] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Was he an aerodynamicist? Or just "some genius scientist type" as you put it. Assuming he must have known something more than anyone else inately is the wrong assumption. Anyone, at anytime, can mess up. What are those results going to be when that mess-up comes? Under a lighter loaded wing the results may not be death. With a heavier loading the chances that it is not death are diminished. Education specificly geared towards handling these canopies during our formative period (student status) is the key to setting life long good habbits in this sport.

Chris Schindler


Michele  (B 26874)

May 31, 2003, 9:44 AM
Post #170 of 493 (1277 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Morning, Wendy

Quote:
People talk about you, but there isn't as much information about what's a good teaching structure.
I don't know about anyone else's experience, but those who I took from do have a well developed syllabus and if I'm not greatly mistaken it was developed from someone else's writings. I received a handout (which I read often), and there were drawings and everything (which, for me, was excellent). There were video tapes which were dissected and explained, showing things necessary (like the deflection of the canopy, in full, partial, and flared flight). There was discussion on planforms, cord and span, and so on (which went over my head, to be honest). Talk about lines, which were which, what did what, and why common things occur (like end cell closure) (and again, some of this was beyond my understanding at the time.)

Quote:
Yes, they're clueless. But, you know, some people are. If you give them a clue, they'll figure out what to do with it, but they just weren't born knowing where there should be clues.
I'm clueless, too. Repeated ground throwing got me a glimmer of one, and I decided I needed to see what the shining light was all about. I don't want people to go through that, if possible. I would rather see someone not get hurt and take the time to get instruction then to go through a long and painful recovery (if possible) and then get some. I'm a wimp, I suppose...it took one serious crash with massive deep tissue bruising to make me strong enough to get the help. I didn't wait to break something (and the only reason I didn't break on that jump was because I'm short, fat and flexible...). So all you clueless folks, this is directed at you: If you see someone repeatedly crashing, coming off the field bruised, bloody, sore, hurt...take them aside. Teach them a little bit, or better yet, introduce them to those who do teach it...and if those guys aren't available, take the person's hand and walk them over to the most senior jumper, and get some sort of conversation going about how to land...and not kill yourself.

Ciels-
Michele


Michele  (B 26874)

May 31, 2003, 11:35 AM
Post #171 of 493 (1260 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mustard] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi, DJan.

Thanks for taking the time to respond before you went to the DZ....I wish I was heading there. Sigh...work calls....

Quote:
What puzzles me is why you were actively discouraged from taking the class
As best as I can recall, the comments were along the lines of:

~"Don't waste your money - you don't even have your own gear yet".
~"You're not ready to learn to swoop; for god's sake you can't even land yet"...
~"You won't understand that stuff. You don't have anything to base your understanding on"...
~"You're gonna waste their time"...
~"All you want to do is talk about skydiving, not actually skydive"...
~"Throw your money away on that? You don't need it...you need to learn freefall stuff, not that!"...
~"Here, I'll help. I'll video you"...and then not being anywhere near the landing area to do it. 4 times.
~"You're just scared of it is all"...
~"Maybe skydiving isn't really for you?" (which, at the time, was a consideration...)
~"Lose some weight, and then you will be able to handle the rough landings better"...(WTF did that have to do with anything? Those're my bumpers!)

Quote:
Did anyone actually desire to see you get hurt? I had a sense of that about me when I was first learning to fly a canopy.
I don't actually think anyone wanted me to get hurt. I really don't think there was that intent. What I think was happening was that I was struggling, people were watching, and not reaching out for whatever reason. And while that was a contentious time at the DZ for me and others, I really don't believe there was any desire to see me actually get hurt. (And to be brutally honest, there were a lot of folk who did encourage me, too...)

It's just they were "too busy" to assist. And who'm I to think anyone would actually want to help (aside from those who did, in fact, do so...). They weren't too busy to watch me crash, or too busy to hand off a passing comment, but they wanted to jump - and so they did. And of course that's why they are at the DZ...so they can jump, not teach me, which is why I went to those who could, did, and will for anyone around. But what about those folks who don't?

My point was that if I made it onto a list which tracks projected femuring in, taking bets as to when/what jump number, how bad, etc. (I am not sure what the qualifications are - I've never seen the list, only heard about it), and not told about the canopy class, then there is a group of folks who were aware that I was seriously endangering myself, and others, by not knowing what I was doing. If they were so aware, why was there no help - and discouragement actually?

Quote:
What's going on here?
I would be willing to bet that there are several things going on here...

1. Peer pressure and the lure of freefall is stronger than the realization that the ground will kill you. (Biggest one)
2. There is a misconception of what Canopy Control Class is about; the thought that it is for HP landings, for learning to swoop, for "dangerous" wingloadings, not for beginngers. I heard a lot of "you'll get the hang of it"...I just wanted to get the "hang of it" before I broke myself...and wasn't instinctively picking it up.
3. There is no clear instruction of what needs to be learned for a safe landing.
4. The folks who write the ISP/AFF syllabus don't remember, or never had a hard time with, learning how to come down safely on today's canopies.
5. You leave student status, turned loose, and told "live free and prosper"...with very little follow-up (at least at a big DZ).
6. Folks think, because their friends and skygod rolemodels didn't, they are "stupid" for needing to take a class to learn how to land straight in. No-one wants to feel like the doofus...
7. Excellent freefall skills are perceived as more desireable in a jumper than adequate landing skills...you get invited on more jumps and get to play more with friends...and that is far more fun for the beginner...landings are, mostly, considered superfluous unless your entire reason for living is the swoop...When folks come down, they are gabbling about how great freefall was, not how great their landings are. They are laughing about how fun the fruitloop was, that sit went so well....but they don't talk about "man, my set up was perfect...right there!" or "geesh, I gauged the winds properly, and tippytoed it...yay me! BEER!". What we hear is "o.k., you had a bit of a spin, here's how to correct that", not "you flared a little bit high, here's how to correct that"...

I sat back and assessed the danger points in skydiving. I put them in this order, and it may be wrong for some, but it's right for me...(there are others, such as altitude awareness...but where the injury risk is highest is here)
A. Parachute malfunctions/deployments
B. Landings
C. Exits
D. Freefall
I am working on these, in that particular order, to minimize my risk in skydiving. AFF left off at A....

If education is the key, then we need to get education out there. Let people know that it's there. It can be had. It needs to be had. And I will always encourage everyone I know to take it. There is something to be learned from the experts...

Thanks for taking the time, DJan, to read and understand where I am coming from.

Ciels-
Michele


(This post was edited by Michele on May 31, 2003, 4:17 PM)


jceman  (D 19212)

May 31, 2003, 2:03 PM
Post #172 of 493 (1241 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Michele] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Michele, (and DJan, too)

I wish lmore people had your attitude regarding what they need to learn to not only have fun in this sport, but just to survive. You are hitting the nail right on the head when you talk about what people expect of a canopy control course -- yes, you can take such a course to learn high performance landings, but you can and I think indeed, should, take one earlier especially if you are having problems landing.

Michele, you aren't the only one to take a course simply to improve your landings. Remember Andrea (SkyMama) did exactly the same thing with Scott Miller for the same reasons. You have proven that you have a good head on your shoulders and would like to keep it there!Wink

I just wish I had had the sense to do the same thing, maybe then I wouldn't have all this titanium in my leg.Blush

It seems you have embarked on a crusade to get more people to take canopy control lessons and I salute you. Where do I sign up for your campaign?


sinker

May 31, 2003, 10:42 PM
Post #173 of 493 (1203 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] [In reply to] Can't Post

a mostly educational post... thanks to all for contributing. Being a low timer, I'm all about being conservative and being under a forgiving canopy. I think my first new main will be a mild seven cell, spectre or tri, that is conservatively loaded. After all, I still get a little spooked doing spirals under a 265 (1:1 loading).

my question is, the talk of videos of folks burning in... where are they? Please, I mean no disrespect and I don't ask out of morbid curiosity. But, seeing the possible benefit of such video, does anyone have any?


Steel  (D 23585)

Jun 1, 2003, 7:54 AM
Post #174 of 493 (1186 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] [In reply to] Can't Post

>Nothing, but it's better than the system we have now, where they stay at 1:1 for 39 jumps then go >with a loading of 2:1. The 500 jump guy will survive that a lot more often than the 39 jump guy will.

Lets try to be realistic over here and not use exageration. I have yet to see somebody with money in hand seriously intending to downsize faster than I did. And I had over 50 jumps before going down to a sabre 150 (1.4 pounds per square foot for me at the time) After that I had well over 500 jumps before getting into some serious downsizing. Anyway the point is that when I hear people talking about newbies with 39 jumps wanting to go to a 2.1 wing loading it sounds like spin. Like they are going to throw out this situation that never happens because they don't expect anybody to question it. Because if it really did happen it might make a good arguement for their agenda.
If I am wrong, I ask prove it. Show 1, just ONE, student (because that is practically a student in my book) with 39 jumps that seriously wants to get a canopy which he would load at 2.1 pounds per square foot. (with wallet in hand I mean not just somebody talking crap)
The only person I ever remember hearing say stuff like that was a whuffo co-worker of mine and that was because he knew what I was doing but didn't understand the time it took to get to where I was at. But after he went to his face on his first on a 300, on his first AFF I don't recall hearing anything stupid after that.


(This post was edited by Steel on Jun 1, 2003, 8:01 AM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jun 1, 2003, 7:59 AM
Post #175 of 493 (1183 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.dropzone.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

Hook


(This post was edited by Hooknswoop on Jun 1, 2003, 8:02 AM)


rhino  (D 22500)

Jun 1, 2003, 9:06 AM
Post #176 of 493 (1367 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] [In reply to] Can't Post

damn.. lol


ernokaikkonen  (D 12)

Jun 1, 2003, 11:39 AM
Post #177 of 493 (1356 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BMFin] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Here is a post I made a while ago about accident statistics in Finland in 2002.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 1, 2003, 12:02 PM
Post #178 of 493 (1353 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] [In reply to] Can't Post

>Lets try to be realistic over here and not use exageration.

I am using an actual example. Someone with 39 jumps called Lisa and tried to buy a sub-100 sq ft canopy a few months back. That's the world we live in now.


crazy  (D 23767)

Jun 1, 2003, 7:47 PM
Post #179 of 493 (1318 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Lets try to be realistic over here and not use exageration.

I am using an actual example. Someone with 39 jumps called Lisa and tried to buy a sub-100 sq ft canopy a few months back. That's the world we live in now.
Fine, there is an example! Assuming that the phone calls were not a troll, do you really think that this is a proper justification for a regulation? Be realistic and check in the fatality reports of the last 5 years, you won't find many 39 jumps wonders at a WL of 2.0. Hardly anything close to this blatant exageration.
Besides, even though there were proper justifications for a regulation (i don't deny this), the suggested solution (a table setting the max WL/number of jumps) is not efficient (except if you extend the regulation to 1000 jumps, with extreme limitations), it is a harsh and unfair constraint for a significant number of skydivers, and it doesn't promote any kind of training (except falsification of the logbook). Such a regulation might even lessen the motivation of the canopy pilots willing to improve their skills.
That regulation looks particularly arbitrary and inept when you compare with the regulation of other leisure (end even non leisure) activities around the world. There are many examples where the regulation reflects a realistic approximation of the risk, and match it with the individual ability to manage the risk.
Skydiving is not like driving cars. It is not a necessity. It is a risk that we are willing to take for our own enjoyment, so, please, before deciding new regulations, make sure that the increase in safety is worth the decrease of enjoyment (if you don't, then a total ban of skydiving is the best regulation).


sducoach  (D License)

Jun 1, 2003, 7:54 PM
Post #180 of 493 (1313 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crazy] [In reply to] Can't Post

SmileEducate or Regulate, that is the decision.

Make the choice to educate and in doing so reduce (you will never eliminate) the problem or, accept the regulation by others.

See ya,

J.E.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jun 1, 2003, 7:55 PM
Post #181 of 493 (1311 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crazy] [In reply to] Can't Post

Besides, even though there were proper justifications for a regulation (i don't deny this), the suggested solution (a table setting the max WL/number of jumps) is not efficient (except if you extend the regulation to 1000 jumps, with extreme limitations), it is a harsh and unfair constraint for a significant number of skydivers, and it doesn't promote any kind of training (except falsification of the logbook).
Quote:

OK, you don't like the proposal, but you agree that something should be put in place. What do you suggest?

Quote:
Educate or Regulate, that is the decision.

Why 'or'? Why not both?

Hook


(This post was edited by Hooknswoop on Jun 1, 2003, 7:56 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 1, 2003, 8:11 PM
Post #182 of 493 (1302 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crazy] [In reply to] Can't Post

>Assuming that the phone calls were not a troll, do you really think that
> this is a proper justification for a regulation?

No, it's just an example of the culture we now have. The justification is the number of people killed under small canopies.

>Such a regulation might even lessen the motivation of the canopy
> pilots willing to improve their skills.

If there were a way to 'opt out' through canopy training it would do the opposite.

>before deciding new regulations, make sure that the increase in safety
> is worth the decrease of enjoyment.

I don't see any decrease in enjoyment beyond the # of jumps you need to go through a canopy control class. Do the class (and pass) and you can do whatever you want. The additional burden is a few jumps and some money; much less of a burden than the current ISP is to new jumpers (at least at those DZ's that implement it.)

>(if you don't, then a total ban of skydiving is the best regulation).

The refrain "why don't you just ban skydiving then" is getting pretty old. We have dozens of regulations that have kept this a safer sport, and kept a lot of people alive. None of them have led to 'banning skydiving.'


crazy  (D 23767)

Jun 1, 2003, 10:56 PM
Post #183 of 493 (1286 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
OK, you don't like the proposal, but you agree that something should be put in place. What do you suggest?
1) get a realistic evaluation of the actual risk. WL is not. A 0.1 lb/sqft difference on 2 different canopies are not representative of the actual risk. The flight characteristics are. If you don't have the flight characteristics, use the WL but excessively conservative (then the manufacturers will disclose the info).

2) make a realistic evaluation of the individual ability to manage the risk. Those who don't want to actively improve their skills can use the number of jumps but excessively conservatively (then they will get the motivation to get some training if they want to fly faster canopies). I'm talking about real restrictions there (500 jumps to fly above a WL of 1.3, 1000 to get a X-brace and 2000 to exceed a WL of 2.0).

Basically, i suggest canopy pilot licences. 4 or 5 different, matching 4 or 5 categories of canopies/WL. It's what you'll find in some places for paragliders, aircrafts, motorbikes, boats...

There are many ways to implement such a thing. For instance, open many different options and say that each removes 20-100 jumps from the default (drastic) requirements. A landing injury adds 50-500 jumps. Get a PRO rating you save 100 jumps. Attend a course you save 50 jumps. Win a swoop competition or an accuracy contest, you save 50 jumps. Coach a group of students on spoting, save 20 jumps...

The individual ability shouldn't be evaluated only on pilot skills. Obviously, the ability to spot and chose a landing area is as important as the ability to flare properly.

Last but not least, to improve the safety, a better understanding of the actual reasons of the accidents. There are quite a lot of other things, apart from WL, and checking carefully the accident reports would probably highlight the fact that there are many ways to prevent landing accidents (hangovers and lack of fitness cost a few femurs each year). But for this, we need proper reports for the accidents. The APF, for instance, logs every single incident, even the most usual malfunctions.


Ron

Jun 2, 2003, 4:38 AM
Post #184 of 493 (1276 views)
Shortcut
Re: [livendive] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
One need not look to regulation to make a safety program become popular. Consider the treatment AODs
got in the 80's then look at the CYPRES. If you can design a canopy control progression system/class that
*works well*, eventually, taking it will become the norm.

What you are missing here is that old AAD's were at times dangerous...They could hurt/kill you...The CYPRES changed that...It is why AAD's are now cool...They were not reliable...now they are.

Canopy issues are different...The problem with Canopy control classes are that:
1. not all DZ's have them.
2. Even the USPA's ISP is not done by all DZ's.
3. Peer presure against them (see Michele's fine posts about this.)
4. Hot shots don't think they need them.."I don't need it, Im a natural."

I think they are great, but there are not enough, and the people that need them to survive, won't take them because they are not cool.

Ron


Ron

Jun 2, 2003, 4:46 AM
Post #185 of 493 (1269 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crazy] [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
1) get a realistic evaluation of the actual risk. WL is not. A 0.1 lb/sqft difference on 2 different canopies
are not representative of the actual risk. The flight characteristics are. If you don't have the flight
characteristics, use the WL but excessively conservative (then the manufacturers will disclose the info).

I would rather have a guy on a Velocity at 1.1 than a Specter at 1.8.

In reply to:
2) make a realistic evaluation of the individual ability to manage the risk

At every DZ...Who would be qualified to make this judgment?

In reply to:
Basically, i suggest canopy pilot licences. 4 or 5 different, matching 4 or 5 categories of canopies/WL. It's
what you'll find in some places for paragliders, aircrafts, motorbikes, boats...

To much work..The USPA will not do it. You *could juat tie wing load to the current license structure...But this plan works as well, and it has more levels.


Ron


mustard  (D 14580)

Jun 2, 2003, 6:26 AM
Post #186 of 493 (1257 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Michele] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I sat back and assessed the danger points in skydiving. I put them in this order, and it may be wrong for some, but it's right for me...(there are others, such as altitude awareness...but where the injury risk is highest is here)
A. Parachute malfunctions/deployments
B. Landings
C. Exits
D. Freefall
I am working on these, in that particular order, to minimize my risk in skydiving. AFF left off at A....

I totally agree with you about these safety priorities. BTW, I read your post several times to try to take it all in, there is a lot there of value to all skydivers. My sense is that skydivers are changing, and quite quickly, it seems. When I began jumping, someone like you would probably have given up, since you seem to want to analyze and fix problems. There was nothing available then, there is now. You may have to look for it, but it's there.

AFF and the subsequent ISP are imperfect vehicles to teach someone everything they need to know about the above subjects. But they are a beginning! USPA is trying to fix a problem, and I am willing to take your concerns to the BOD in July. But remember I am only one of 22, although I am one of 6 on the Safety & Training Committee. The ISP coaches are teaching exits and some canopy control and hopefully making students safer than they were before when AFF was all skydivers had.

After discussing this issue at the DZ while we waited for the low clouds to clear, most skydivers I spoke to are against any kind of regulation or rule for the simple reason that each situation is unique. Why not have the S&TA and/or the DZO figure out what is appropriate wingloading for someone downsizing? That should be the S&TA's first priority, since that's where most people get hurt: on landing.

This means that the S&TA has to be there and be engaged in this issue. Aren't most? I sure hope the answer is yes.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 2, 2003, 6:42 AM
Post #187 of 493 (1248 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mustard] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

If you are going to implement any system of regulation that requires an individual to get permission to do something (a "license" if you like) then the criterion should be demonstrated ability.

Just tying it to jump numbers is absurd. We have all met folks with tons of jumps who are still clueless, have poor judgement, or no situational awareness, and vice versa.


Ron

Jun 2, 2003, 7:09 AM
Post #188 of 493 (1235 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Just tying it to jump numbers is absurd. We have all met folks with tons of jumps who are still clueless,
have poor judgement, or no situational awareness, and vice versa.
------------------

Yes John,

But I bet we both know people that could have soloed a plane at 2hrs.... And maybe gotten the Pilots license at 10. But the FAA wants 40.

I can fly a tail wheel airplane....but the FAA will not let me till I get the endorsment. I need a high performance endorsment to fly a Bonanza...I had to get one before I could Solo it...Then the insurance guys went nuts when I tried to get insurance on it.

Skydiving does not have endorsments...or problems getting to fly pocket rockets....We need some sort of regulation. Education is not working, and peer pressure is not either.

Ron


Ron

Jun 2, 2003, 7:16 AM
Post #189 of 493 (1231 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mustard] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Why not
have the S&TA and/or the DZO figure out what is appropriate wingloading for someone downsizing?
That should be the S&TA's first priority, since that's where most people get hurt: on landing.

Simple answer? Its not happening.

I have seen S&TA's SELL a guy with 100 jumps a Stiletto...Why? He had one to sell, and they guy wanted it.

I have seen guys tell people that canopy control classes are a waste of money...

I have seen guys pound in time after time. And when I try to teach them, or warn them...I get told that I am stupid, and that I am just trying to be a "canopy Nazi" and hold them back. Some people just will not listen...does this mean they should die?

The USPA can't get the ISP implemented everywhere....What makes anyone think any other education program will get put into place and be used?

How many people need to die before the USPA does something about this issue?

Ron


mustard  (D 14580)

Jun 2, 2003, 9:14 AM
Post #190 of 493 (1207 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The USPA can't get the ISP implemented everywhere....What makes anyone think any other education program will get put into place and be used?

How many people need to die before the USPA does something about this issue?

If the ISP can't be implemented everywhere, how are we ever going to come up with rules and regulations that everyone will follow? In my opinion, it will only lead to people falsifying jump numbers, resentment, and peole complaining about the heavy hand of the USPA.

The issue is not how many people need to die before the USPA does something. People will always push the envelope, especially young testosterone-driven males. If you set up a rule, it will give these guys a chance to get more creative in getting around it.

The canopies are getting smaller, faster, more extreme. How do you regulate good sense????


Ron

Jun 2, 2003, 10:10 AM
Post #191 of 493 (1196 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mustard] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
f the ISP can't be implemented everywhere, how are we ever going to come up with rules and regulations
that everyone will follow?

Something is better than sitting doing nothing.

In reply to:
In my opinion, it will only lead to people falsifying jump numbers, resentment, and
peole complaining about the heavy hand of the USPA.

People lie now about jump #'s.

Question? How much work would this take?
Answer the same amount that Pull Altitudes take.
Sometimes they are enforced, sometimes not.
But atleast there is something there to give S&TA's some backup when it comes to this issue.


In reply to:
The issue is not how many people need to die before the USPA does something. People will always push
the envelope, especially young testosterone-driven males. If you set up a rule, it will give these guys a
chance to get more creative in getting around it.

How did pull altitudes get put in?

In reply to:
The canopies are getting smaller, faster, more extreme. How do you regulate good sense????

You can't, but you CAN regulate canopy wingload. Just like pull altitudes, wind limits, who can do demos, who can jump with students, who can be instructors, who has to wear an AAD or RSL, who can do night jumps, ect. All of these were put into place to respond to a trend that was unsafe....this is such a trend.

Education is not working for the majority....Peer pressure is not working. In fact most times there is peer pressure NOT to go to canopy classes, and to downsize.

People keep saying that education is the answer...Hell, I agree. But it is not working. So regulation is need to to delay these young jumpers canopy choice till either they get the education, or the experience to not get hurt/killed learning.

Please, come up with a better plan...But don't just say that nothing can be done. Or sit and wait for someone else to do it.

The USPA should actually do something about this insted of just wishing it will go away.

What has the USPA done on this issue?

Ron


mustard  (D 14580)

Jun 2, 2003, 10:54 AM
Post #192 of 493 (1187 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Education is not working for the majority....Peer pressure is not working. In fact most times there is peer pressure NOT to go to canopy classes, and to downsize.

Ron, I agree with you that there is tremendous pressure to downsize. I see it all the time. We don't start out flying kleenex-sized canopies. The old joke about someone asking what is the correct size canopy is to keep downsizing until you hurt yourself, then go up a size.

But I don't agree that education is not working. There are several problems here, as I see it. Here's the first one: canopies are being created that require more and more skill to fly. I don't have to fly that canopy if I don't want to, but if I want to, all I have to do is buy it. Something is wrong here, I hear what you're saying. But if education isn't working, why are we having this conversation? Isn't that education? Aren't you educating others who are reading your responses?

Second problem: people aren't using good sense about canopy downsizing. You are suggesting that we put a rule in place that will help to keep people from hurting themselves. That rule does not take into account the variations in learning and skill.

Third problem: USPA is like any other organization, it moves slowly when making changes. Rules and regulations are only added when it becomes obvious that something needs to be done. You are saying we are at that point. But there is a huge number of your follow skydivers that feel this is a wrong approach. USPA won't be able to make the changes as fast as educating jumpers about the risks they are taking will.

Every heard the old story about the hundredth monkey? In the 1950s, a monkey on an island learned to wash sweet potatoes, and taught her offspring how to do it. Suppose that there were 99 monkeys that learned to wash their potatoes on a particular day. Then when the 100th monkey learned, a breakthrough happened. Once that monkey learned, monkeys on other islands, not in contact with the first ones, also began washing their sweet potatoes.

What this teaches us is that when we reach a certain critical mass with awareness, this new awareness is communicated to mind to mind. I believe this is what must happen in creating a new mindset for canopy piloting.

This happens through education, not regulation.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 2, 2003, 11:12 AM
Post #193 of 493 (1175 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mustard] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

> Something is wrong here, I hear what you're saying. But if education
> isn't working, why are we having this conversation? Isn't that
> education? Aren't you educating others who are reading your
> responses?

Of course. But any system that works for 10% of the skydiving population (i.e. the percentage who regularly read this group) isn't a good solution to such a serious problem. Likewise, Elsinore has a canopy control class that's excellent. That doesn't solve the problem at Byron.

I agree that education is the solution. How do we get that education to the people who need it?

>Second problem: people aren't using good sense about canopy
>downsizing. You are suggesting that we put a rule in place that will
> help to keep people from hurting themselves. That rule does not
> take into account the variations in learning and skill.

I agree; it would unneccesarily require some people to take canopy control courses who don't need to. However, we have this now. By the time I took my water training course, I had landed in the New River under a BASE canopy - twice. I didn't really need to jump in a pool after having landed in a fast-moving river under a real parachute. Yet I took it - and even learned a few things. I suspect a canopy training rule (i.e. Ron's rule with a way to 'opt out' through a course) would save a lot more people than a water training course.

>Third problem: USPA is like any other organization, it moves slowly
>when making changes. Rules and regulations are only added when it
> becomes obvious that something needs to be done. You are saying
> we are at that point. But there is a huge number of your follow
> skydivers that feel this is a wrong approach. USPA won't be able to
> make the changes as fast as educating jumpers about the risks
> they are taking will.

It has been my experience that skydivers simply cannot listen to certain things, and "you're not good enough to fly that canopy" is one of them. "You might forget to pull" is another one of them, and if that's why people bought AAD's, then almost no one would own an AAD. Since most people get them "in case someone knocks me out" we have widespread usage - that reasoning is more acceptable to skydivers than an admission of fallibility.

So let's take worst case. Canopy fatalities continue to rise. There continues to be resistance from many skydivers over mandatory canopy _anything._ What's the # of canopy fatalities a year where rules+regulations must be added? 50? 100? Because from what I've seen at the drop zone, that's where we're headed. The 35 jump guy who wants a Stiletto 97 used to be a joke. Now it's happening - and nowadays he can get an "old, safer" Stiletto 97 because he's not getting the more dangerous Velocity. Yet physics haven't changed, and he will die just as quickly as a jumper under a Stiletto 97 would have ten years back, when it was considered a deadly dangerous canopy.

Anyway, education can work, and indeed is about the only thing that will slow down the fatality rate. Regulation is one way to get them to get that education. I'm sure there are other ways, but I don't think hoping for a culture change will work quickly enough.


Ron

Jun 2, 2003, 11:13 AM
Post #194 of 493 (1174 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mustard] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
But I don't agree that education is not working. There are several problems here, as I see it. Here's the
first one: canopies are being created that require more and more skill to fly. I don't have to fly that canopy
if I don't want to, but if I want to, all I have to do is buy it. Something is wrong here, I hear what you're
saying. But if education isn't working, why are we having this conversation? Isn't that education? Aren't
you educating others who are reading your responses?

For there to be education there has to be learning...From what I have seen, and the incident reports, people are not learning....When these canopies came out, guys with thousands of jumps were getting hurt. And thats becasue they were the only ones that could get them then. Now it is the new guys on them. The trend is since these guys can get them, they will. Education is working...for the people that look for it, and think they need it. The problem is it is not manditory or even possible for everyone to take these classes.


In reply to:
Second problem: people aren't using good sense about canopy downsizing. You are suggesting that we put
a rule in place that will help to keep people from hurting themselves.

Thats because most people with 300 jumps don't know better, and the cool thing to do is get the small canopy. And since they can get them, they will.

In reply to:
That rule does not take into account
the variations in learning and skill.

OK well I know how to pull low. I know what gear to use, and how to pack it. I have had 6 malfuctions, so I know how to do my emergancy procedures. So I think that I should be allowed to pull at 1200 feet. Who am I hurting? Only me if I am wrong. What buisness is it of the USPA to tell me where I can pull? You are stepping on my personal freedoms, I have pulled at 1200 feet several times, so I feel for ME it is safe. So are you going to waiver the BSR's for me?

In reply to:
Third problem: USPA is like any other organization, it moves slowly when making changes. Rules and
regulations are only added when it becomes obvious that something needs to be done. You are saying we
are at that point. But there is a huge number of your follow skydivers that feel this is a wrong approach.

A large number of those that are pissed, are under 500 jumps.

The same thing was said about minumum pull hights...I bet lots of people were upset at them when they came out...same thing here.

In reply to:
USPA won't be able to make the changes as fast as educating jumpers about the risks they are taking will.

I disagree, you could have a BSR by next year....To iplement a nationwide canopy program at ALL DZ's would take years...And then just like the ISP, it will be fought, and not followed.


Ron


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 2, 2003, 11:30 AM
Post #195 of 493 (1159 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mustard] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Something is wrong here, I hear what you're saying. But if education isn't working, why are we having this conversation? Isn't that education? Aren't you educating others who are reading your responses?

Sorry DJan, often times on these forums we are preaching to the choir. It's the poeple who do not read these forums regulalry other than Talk Back that scare me. They are the ones that need educating. And how will that be done? We can't make them read DZ.com. But we can make them take an education course on any new canopy they go to.

Chris


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 2, 2003, 11:51 AM
Post #196 of 493 (1150 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
For there to be education there has to be learning...From what I have seen, and the incident reports, people are not learning........ Education is working...for the people that look for it, and think they need it. The problem is it is not manditory or even possible for everyone to take these classes.

i still dont see this. How is it not possible? you cant walk up to the good canopy pilots at your DZ and ASK?? it doesnt have to be formal (none of mine were) you just walk up and ask..maybe you pay for their slot, but IME it was mostly free simply because i was interested and i actually ASKED Michele's experience aside (i'm shocked theres that much ignorance at one DZ but my experience has been the opposite) how many people who are interested in canopy control have asked a more experienced jumper and been told "no i wont help you??"Crazy


Quote:
OK well I know how to pull low. I know what gear to use, and how to pack it. I have had 6 malfuctions, so I know how to do my emergancy procedures. So I think that I should be allowed to pull at 1200 feet. Who am I hurting? Only me if I am wrong. What buisness is it of the USPA to tell me where I can pull? You are stepping on my personal freedoms, I have pulled at 1200 feet several times, so I feel for ME it is safe. So are you going to waiver the BSR's for me?
Quote:

can we leave the straw man argument out of it? its not the same issue at all.

Quote:
A large number of those that are pissed, are under 500 jumps....

I disagree, you could have a BSR by next year...

so 2 years later when everyone who dies under a small canopy has 500+ jumps you'll be content? or will you scream "how many people have to die??" again and "only those under 1000 jumps are pissed"

[callous] sorry but i also dont agree we are to the point where ANY regulation is necessary in the first place, you still havent provided any data that suggests the number of deaths in a single year was more than a statistically spike. There are a lot more factors to any fatality than simple wingloading, but the data isnt there to analyse deeply so everyone in favor of regulation points at wingloading as if it were the ONLY contributing factor..currency anyone??

Yes the stupid, those driven by ego, those who will not listen, will not pay attention to your proposed BSR anyway any more than they pay attention to anything else anyone tries to tell them for their own benefit and if for some reason they couldnt get the micro napkin they wanted at 300 jumps, will go ahead and get it at 502 and STILL not listen and pound in. You know what? in skydiving ignorance IS painful, oh well thats more O2 for anyone who cares to learn..[/callous]

amazing how you can cite examples of 'bad' ST&A's and yet you expect them to follow and enforce a BSR they must not agree with in the first place if they are putting people under canopies at wingloadings you consider unsafe..why make further regulation at all if its not going to be enforced? if the current guidlines for instruction are not being enforced??

if you really want to change things change them at your DZ..talk to people about canopy control classes, offer some of your time to teach a jumper you think is at risk instead of just chewing them out, pick one day (or a whole weekend, how important is this to you??) a month where you'll jump with and give canopy control tips to anyone who asks, encourage everyone of your students to aggressively pursue canopy control after they are licensed, nothing has to be formally done if the people with the knowledge take the time to share it..change the culture by influence, not by coercion...

oh wait..thats to hard..might as well just pass a rule and be done with it...Tongue


jlmiracle  (D License)

Jun 2, 2003, 12:11 PM
Post #197 of 493 (1138 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Here are all the variables that I could think of to come up with some way to BSR wingloading.

1. Jump number

2. Number of jumps in last 3mo, 6mo, 9mo, 12mo (lets face it, someone with 250 jumps over 1 year is probably more able of flying a smaller canopy than someone with 500 jumps over 10 years.)

3. DZ elevations - every dz would have to have a different wingloading chart. (my canopy flys alot faster at Perris than it does at my home dz.)

3a. Different elevations at different dzs will restrict where you can jump because of your canopy size unless you buy a canopy for every dz you are going to jump at.

4. Who is going to be responsible for figuring out on EVERY canopy out there, what the appropriate wingloading at every elevation and appropriate jump number to go with it.

5. MONEY - if we are going to educate skydivers someone wants to get paid, maybe not at every dropzone but at most. With the implementation of ISP the cost of learning to skydive is already twice what I paid, and now we want to REQUIRE a canopy class.

I don't like seeing people hurt themselves, even when its do to stupidity. Stupid people shouldn't skydive and I guess these twin bed sheets people are insisting on flying will start to weed out the really stupid and eventually we won't have to worry about it anymore. This sounds cold and insensative but that's my point of view.

There are no OLD and BOLD skydivers, and I don't expect there ever will be.

Judy


Ron

Jun 2, 2003, 12:20 PM
Post #198 of 493 (1129 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
i still dont see this. How is it not possible? you cant walk up to the good canopy pilots at your DZ and ASK?? it
doesnt have to be formal (none of mine were) you just walk up and ask..maybe you pay for their slot, but IME it
was mostly free simply because i was interested and i actually ASKED Michele's experience aside (i'm shocked
theres that much ignorance at one DZ but my experience has been the opposite) how many people who are
interested in canopy control have asked a more experienced jumper and been told "no i wont help you??"

You think it might be possible that you only know a few DZ's where I have been to almost 50.....Not everywhere has the skill level as other places...deLand has a school...Zhills, Lake Wales, and ALL of the smaller DZ's here don't. So education has to be available. AND the people have to want it...Remember I guess you are better than the average guy...Of course everyone thinks that of themselves...Some don't know they need it..Others think they know it all.



In reply to:
can we leave the straw man argument out of it? its not the same issue at all.

It is the same thing...I think I can do something...the USPA does not..So they passed a BSR to prevent people who thought they knew better from getting killed. Same thing dude.
People bitched then, now they accept it. Same thing will happen here...People still pull low, but less than they did.


In reply to:
if you really want to change things change them at your DZ..talk to people about canopy control
classes, offer some of your time to teach a jumper you think is at risk instead of just chewing them out,
pick one day (or a whole weekend, how important is this to you??) a month where you'll jump with and
give canopy control tips to anyone who asks, encourage everyone of your students to aggressively
pursue canopy control after they are licensed, nothing has to be formally done if the people with the
knowledge take the time to share it..change the culture by influence, not by coercion...

Well it is clear you don't know me at all....I back up my words with action..And I am not afraid to do something when I see an issue...I also don't care what people think of me when I do it...cool huh? I don't just sit and bitch about an issue..I do something..that is something a lot more people should do.

Maybe you should get around more...Not ment as a slam...Just open your mind past your personal experience,and DZ. Not everyone is you or at your DZ. Believe it or not some DZ's the Chief instructor has 1000 jumps...Mine had 500.

Ron

And like I said before...Feel free to come up with a training program and a plan to implement it in the whole USA....I will gladly do it...If it could work. It will not.


mustard  (D 14580)

Jun 2, 2003, 12:22 PM
Post #199 of 493 (1139 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
And how will that be done? We can't make them read DZ.com. But we can make them take an education course on any new canopy they go to.

Can we make them take it? People in the middle of the country won't have one for ages. We haven't been able to get the ISP in place in most places. One thing we don't want to do is cram in more rules that aren't followed.

I hear what all of you are saying. I'm not arguing that it's not broke, it is. How to fix it is what we are talking about. Ron, Billvon, all of you all agree. I agree. But how to do it is not simple, or we would have fixed it for all but the most incalcitrant.

I feel like I've stepped in a hornet's nest here. I want to help. I'm just not sure that a "wingload BSR" is the solution -- or any solution but just more problem.


Ron

Jun 2, 2003, 12:35 PM
Post #200 of 493 (1133 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mustard] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Can we make them take it? People in the middle of the country won't have one for ages. We haven't been
able to get the ISP in place in most places. One thing we don't want to do is cram in more rules that aren't
followed.

And thats the problem with education...this and the fact that most people don't think they need it, or want to spend the money on it.

In reply to:
I feel like I've stepped in a hornet's nest here. I want to help. I'm just not sure that a "wingload BSR" is the
solution -- or any solution but just more problem.

See the issue? Sometimes you have to do something...even if it is not perfect. If this delays them for a few years, then during this time maybe they will learn. With Bill's idea they could "test out". That would make them want to take the classes.

In the mean time this will help prevent people with 300 jumps from getting killed.

Not a bad thing.

Ron


Steel  (D 23585)

Jun 2, 2003, 12:40 PM
Post #201 of 493 (1345 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

If your going to base your policy on strictly safety then there is something else missing from your formula. Fact is bigger guys can wingload heavier with the same degree of safety. Although he did not come right out and say this John Leblanc suggested this from a different angle years ago. But obviously we don't need John Leblanc to understand something that is so obvious. Atleast for me it is. I have jumped my 70 loaded @ 3.1 with 19 inch risers and I jumped it with 22 inch risers and I could tell the difference quite clearly there (with only 3 inches of more line). A heavier guy will be using a bigger canopy with longer lines for the same wingloading. Although his foward speed might be about the same, his dive from the same approach will be shorter and his canpy will respond less to the same turning inputs riser or toggle. This will make it safer for a 200 pound guy to load at 3.4 than for a 140 pound guy. My 62 does not twitch anywhere near what Luigi's 46 does but its loaded at practically the same weight. I don't think your BSR would take that into account, hence it wouldn't be fair.


Ron

Jun 2, 2003, 12:45 PM
Post #202 of 493 (1338 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
f your going to base your policy on strictly safety then there is something else missing from your formula.
Fact is bigger guys can wingload heavier with the same degree of safety.

So? How does this really matter? If it is safer...good.

In reply to:
I don't think your BSR would take that
into account, hence it wouldn't be fair.

I am not worried about fair...I am worried about safe.

Other countries don't get this detailed...I don't think it is needed.

remember not everyone is you.

Ron


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 2, 2003, 12:45 PM
Post #203 of 493 (1338 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I back up my words with action..And I am not afraid to do something when I see an issue...I also don't care what people think of me when I do it...cool huh? I don't just sit and bitch about an issue..I do something..that is something a lot more people should do.

no i dont know you at all other than this forum and neither do you know me so lets not make this personal as its uninformative and useless to the discussion to get into such flame wars.)

so is your action whining for more regulation on the internet? or are you actually out there doing these things? did you offer to teach the last guy you chewed out for flying like an idiot or did you just give him your .02 and leave him thinking you were an ass?

(also not meant as a slam) but if your serious about stopping accidents there two routes..one leaves it up to a higher organization to pass rules that may or may not be enforced, the other involves people with the knowledge being proactive about sharing it..

Quote:
come up with a training program ....If it could work. It will not

it would help if everyones minds stayed open

heres one i followed at around 60 jumps..

-me to a PST qualified competitor
"hey are you busy? mind jumping with me today and giving me some canopy control pointers?"
-PST competitor "sure..i wasnt planning on jumping today so can you cover my slots?"
-me "absolutely"

how hard is that?? why cant jumpers cant do that at their DZ? it doesnt have to be a Pro either, there are mentors everywhere, but if someone at a tiny cessna DZ is flying a canopy they shouldnt be (and there no one there to teach them) isnt it up to the local ST&A to step in?? it shouldnt be to hard to observe every jumper at smaller operations.

those that want the knowledge will seek it, those who do not(and are not lucky or cannot learn well on their own) will still pound in..the difference is with the propose BSR they will do it at 505 jumps vs 205, if they care about following the rules at all...

are you also going to lobby manufacturers to come with a standardized system of canopy measurement? I asked a few riggers this weekend and they thought it was funny..how exactly are you planning on determining wingloading when you cant accurately determine wing size from on canopy to another?


(This post was edited by Zenister on Jun 2, 2003, 12:47 PM)


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 2, 2003, 12:53 PM
Post #204 of 493 (1331 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
[See the issue? Sometimes you have to do something...even if it is not perfect. If this delays them for a few years, then during this time maybe they will learn. With Bill's idea they could "test out". That would make them want to take the classes.

In most all cases its better to study any issue than to take misguided or ineffective half measures..even when peoples lives are at stake..after all we arent talking about a risk to the general public, where the uninformed could unknowingly die from something they thought was safe, we are talking about a sport everyone involved in KNOWS the risks because they signed a waiver saying they understand it before they start. Education is simply the smart thing to do, but you cant force everyone to be smart, no matter how honorable your intentions..


Ron

Jun 2, 2003, 12:54 PM
Post #205 of 493 (1330 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
so is your action whining for more regulation on the internet? or are you actually out there doing these things?
did you offer to teach the last guy you chewed out for flying like an idiot or did you just give him your .02 and
leave him thinking you were an ass?

Well I don't see what I am doing as "whining" just like you don't think you are "bitching" about your freedom.

So yes, I am always available to anyone that needs me...

I am doing something, you are just standing in the way.
And for what reason?


In reply to:
heres one i followed at around 60 jumps..

-me to a PST qualified competitor
"hey are you busy? mind jumping with me today and giving me some canopy control pointers?"
-PST competitor "sure..i wasnt planning on jumping today so can you cover my slots?"
-me "absolutely"

how hard is that?? why cant jumpers cant do that at their DZ? it doesnt have to be a Pro either, there are
mentors everywhere, but if someone at a tiny cessna DZ is flying a canopy they shouldnt be (and there no one
there to teach them) isnt it up to the local ST&A to step in?? it shouldnt be to hard to observe every jumper at
smaller operations.

Because they are not doing it.

In reply to:
are you also going to lobby manufacturers to come with a standardized system of canopy measurement? I
asked a few riggers this weekend and they thought it was funny..how exactly are you planning on determining
wingloading when you cant accurately determine wing size from on canopy to another?

I bet all the riggers know what size is which.

Like I said do something other than complain about those that are trying to do something good.

In reply to:
but if your serious about stopping accidents there two routes..one leaves it up to a
higher organization to pass rules that may or may not be enforced, the other involves people with the
knowledge being proactive about sharing it..

And one will reach everyone...The other will only reach the people that I can see...And only those that will listen.

Ron


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 2, 2003, 1:01 PM
Post #206 of 493 (1320 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Like I said do something other than complain about those that are trying to do something good.

just to be clear, i have no problem with your goal. I think you are taking the low (and ultimately ineffective) road to reaching it.

Criticism is not complaining. I am pointing out why a simple wingloading based regulation is not the best answer. I am not standing in the way of anything but more useless and unenforcible regulation.

I believe you should always take the most effective action not the easiest. Even if it is more difficult and takes more time.


(This post was edited by Zenister on Jun 2, 2003, 1:02 PM)


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jun 2, 2003, 1:16 PM
Post #207 of 493 (1314 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mustard] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't have to fly that canopy if I don't want to, but if I want to, all I have to do is buy it. Something is wrong here, I hear what you're saying. But if education isn't working, why are we having this conversation? Isn't that education? Aren't you educating others who are reading your responses?
I've been trying to educate others who read what I type here for over two years and those who talked to me at work for over 6 years. I've been called old fashioned, a canopy nazi, too conservative and out of step with the times. I've given real world examples of jumpers who will never walk, much less jump, again and been told those people were just stupid.

I've talked to hundreds of new skydivers who are being told - by AFF instructors, DZO's and S&TA's - to buy canopies they'll load at 1.1 or higher when they can't predictably land a canopy loaded at less than 1.0 yet. I've sold countless complete rigs for people who never even made it to 300 jumps - shit happened and they couldn't land that 1.1 loading safely, they broke, no more skydiving for them.

If the advice to stay conservative and get advanced canopy control training isn't coming from someone the jumper knows and respects, it isn't going to get through. If that advice is contrary to what someone the jumper knows and respects says... it definitely isn't going to get through.

In reply to:
Second problem: people aren't using good sense about canopy downsizing. You are suggesting that we put a rule in place that will help to keep people from hurting themselves. That rule does not take into account the variations in learning and skill.
Derek's proposal does allow for variations in learning, skill, desire, and msl altitude. It even provides outs for jumpers like me who don't care to fly a fast canopy.

In reply to:
Third problem: USPA is like any other organization, it moves slowly when making changes. Rules and regulations are only added when it becomes obvious that something needs to be done.
Something needs to be done, and knowing how slowly USPA moves the sooner we start on it the better.

In reply to:
But there is a huge number of your follow skydivers that feel this is a wrong approach. USPA won't be able to make the changes as fast as educating jumpers about the risks they are taking will.
I'm sure many jumpers felt the same about pull altitude and wind speed limitations for licensed jumpers. How many lives have those BSR's saved over the years?

Educating people about the risks they are taking isn't working. Like a teenager who "forgets" birth control, it's the old "it won't happen to me" attitude. Give the instructors, S&TA's and gear dealers of the US some guidance, a piece of paper they can point to that says it's not okay for someone with 100 jumps to be flying a 1.5 wingloading when that hundred jump wonder starts flashing the dollar bills around.


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 2, 2003, 1:20 PM
Post #208 of 493 (1308 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mustard] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

DJan, what it will take is people standing up and saying this is the line. This far. No farther. Not for now. Why in the world did we ever come up with licenses in the first place? Why not just an A license? Ahhhh!!! Because people realised that there needed to be graduated progression. And USPA has done fine following that program to this point. Some now think those jump numbers per license need to be increased. This can't be static. They have to evolve. But just saying USPA can't get anything done so don't go that way is a bad thing in my view. That's why we elected you people. Make it happen.

The ISP was a good idea but it got watered down in my opinion. It didn't need to. And I think that's why so many don't accept it. AFF wasn't enough. So others developed programs to fill in the gaps. The ISP was supposed to flesh out our old programs into a modern program. But too many old timers stuck their fingers in it.

Times change. Life is not static. USPA has to act to keep up and by listening to what the membership wants is how they can stay in a leadership role. Otherwise it will be deemed irrelivant. If people couldn't handle regulation then we wouldn't have any instructor ratings, or JM ratings, or IE ratings, or tandem ratings with [gasp] a probationary period. Our current system shows that we can tollerate graduated progression in our skydiving careers. This is NOT that far of a stretch. Setting the wingloading progression points will be the hard debate in my opinion. And then again, it could get so watered down that USPA will not have a leadership role at all. I hope they will act and address this issue in real terms and not the lip service I've seen in the past few years.

Chris Schindler


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 2, 2003, 1:22 PM
Post #209 of 493 (1306 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

>Fact is bigger guys can wingload heavier with the same degree of
>safety.

I disagree. I _do_ agree that a bigger guy under a bigger canopy (i.e. with the same wingloading) will feel like his canopy is more of a dog. It will be flying about the same speed as a smaller person under the same loading; however, he has much more energy to dissipate if he hits too hard (1/2mv^2) and the square-cubed law says that his body isn't much stronger than the smaller person's. Put another way, a lighter person who hits the ground at the same speed as a heavier person will fare better, everything else being equal. This tends to even out the risk.


Steel  (D 23585)

Jun 2, 2003, 1:31 PM
Post #210 of 493 (1293 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

I see you really gave that some thought. There is definately a certain truth to that, as long as they both are in the same shape. Which only proves that the formula gets more complicated as you go along. Take me for instance 5'9" 200 pounds 8% bodyfat, I have no doubt the same screw up ending in the same impact will affect me less than some other guy who may be 5'9" weighing 200 pounds with 15% bodyfat (about average for an adult male). Now we have not even considered flying skills just different body types and again we end up in the same place everybody is different and policies based on jump numbers is just not fair.


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 2, 2003, 1:33 PM
Post #211 of 493 (1300 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Give the instructors, S&TA's and gear dealers of the US some guidance, a piece of paper they can point to that says it's not okay for someone with 100 jumps to be flying a 1.5 wingloading when that hundred jump wonder starts flashing the dollar bills around.

You know the sign that says we card anyone that looks to be under 30 for alchohol? I think that works pretty good in most cases. So the others that say education is the only thing we should focus on would think that just educating 16 year olds that alchohol is bad and you shouldn't drink and drive is all we should do? We shouldn't have a 18 year limit for smokes and 21 year limit for alchohol? Well, I happen to think those are good things in our society. Graduated priveledge is part of our society and I don't see it applying here as a bad thing.


mustard  (D 14580)

Jun 2, 2003, 1:41 PM
Post #212 of 493 (1295 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

I hope I don't get into too much trouble here at the office. I feel like an addict who cannot let this dang thing go! My work will suffer... but here goes! (plunge)

Quote:
Some now think those jump numbers per license need to be increased. This can't be static. They have to evolve.

The licenses are being revised to align with the FAI. The world is indeed shrinking. There is plenty of resistance to change throughout our organization, jump numbers for licences too.


Quote:
The ISP was a good idea but it got watered down in my opinion. It didn't need to. And I think that's why so many don't accept it. AFF wasn't enough. So others developed programs to fill in the gaps. The ISP was supposed to flesh out our old programs into a modern program. But too many old timers stuck their fingers in it.

Yes, it did get changed, even "watered down." It had to reflect *everyone's* concerns. Old timers jump too, old timers are on the BOD too. They represent a valid viewpoint in the organization. But we made a start! We actually got the ball rolling! This is HUGE.



Quote:
Times change. Life is not static. USPA has to act to keep up and by listening to what the membership wants is how they can stay in a leadership role. Otherwise it will be deemed irrelivant.

Would you be willing to put it to a vote? How do you listen to the membership when we're talking about real live skydivers here who come from all walks of life, all ages, all kinds of emotional makeups? Does "majority rule"? USPA becoming irrelevant? Well, there are lots of skydivers who feel USPA already is. How to make it more relevant to everyone's issues? More rules?

I am all for guidelines. Do you think if USPA came up with a set of guidelines, NOT hard-and-fast you-gotta-do-this-or-else BSRs that it would save lives? Could we get started? I want to take something to the BOD that will be discussed in Committee.

We *are* going to be discussing this, never fear. Other people on the BOD have been asked to look at this issue. I want to help with guidelines that could be posted at DZs, sent to S&TAs, posted on the USPA website, sent to canopy manufacturers.

Whadda think?


livendive  (D 21415)

Jun 2, 2003, 1:48 PM
Post #213 of 493 (1290 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I am not worried about fair...I am worried about safe.

Skydiving is not and never will be safe. It will always be dangerous. What we are talking about is how dangerous. What you deem "acceptably safe" is too safe for some and too risky for others. Imposing your idea of "safe" on others would certainly be unfair to some portion of us, and skydiving would still be dangerous for all of us.

Blues,
Dave


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jun 2, 2003, 1:51 PM
Post #214 of 493 (1288 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mustard] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I am all for guidelines. Do you think if USPA came up with a set of guidelines, NOT hard-and-fast you-gotta-do-this-or-else BSRs that it would save lives? Could we get started? I want to take something to the BOD that will be discussed in Committee.
Brain Germain's proposed a rough guideline based solely on jump numbers - it's been mentioned before in this thread.

imho guidelines without accompanying educational requirements aren't going to do the whole job, and will be fought tooth and nail by those who fear limits on their "freedom." They'll be more likely to accept wingloading/experience guidelines if there is an "alternate path" available that makes smaller canopies available to more aggressive jumpers at lower experience levels - an alternate path that stresses advanced training prior to flying advanced canopies. This is why I like Derek's proposal far more than one that provides only canopy sizing guidelines.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jun 2, 2003, 1:54 PM
Post #215 of 493 (1285 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Is Ron’s proposal completely fair? No. If implemented it will cause some jumpers to jump at a lower wing loading than they are capable of for a while. What’s the harm in that? Err on the side of safety.

Is my proposal completely fair? No. Same deal. Are the minimum pull altitudes completely fair? No. Can Ron pull at 1900 feet regularly and less of a chance of bouncing than someone with 50 jumps pulling at 3,500 feet? Yes, so should we not have the minimum pull altitude BSR because it is unfair? Of course not. It makes sense and if Ron (and others) have to pull a bit higher than they are capable of, so be it. It just isn’t that big of a deal.

My proposal is more complicated and unwieldy. It is ‘fairer’, but more difficult to implement and use. If the max wing loading a jumper can have at sea level is 1.3:1 and they decide to go to CO and jump and are their limit and can’t jump at the higher landing altitude, is that so bad? If they are their limit and the altitude has the same effect as downsizing, then the altitude puts them in over their head, at an unfamiliar DZ. Seems like the landing altitude restriction would/could save jumpers from injury/death.

The point is not just the low turn fatalities, but the far more serious injuries. No BSR will end all landing accidents. But isn’t there a need to bring the number of serious injuries and fatalities down? What is in place right now (DZO’s, Instructors and S & TA’s making judgement calls) is not preventing the numerous injuries and fatalities. The current system is broken. Ron and I (spurred by Ron’s idea) have made proposals. Others have voiced their opinions and dispelled myths. There really was a less than 40 jump wonder looking to load a canopy at 1.86+:1. We cannot deny that there is a problem. Any solution that is implemented will not be perfect. It will stifle some jumpers and still not prevent others from hammering in, but the problem needs to be fixed, perfect solution or no.

Let’s agree that we need to fix the problem. If you don’t believe there is a problem, go back and re-read this thread and then the incidents forum.

DZO’s decide whether or not to use the ISP or AFP programs, and these decision can be based on financial considerations. They will also either follow or not follow a wing loading BSR based on financial considerations. Having a bunch of jumpers grounded because they bought too small of a canopy isn’t going to go over well with a DZO with a lease payment on the horizon. Does anyone not think that the ISP is better than AFF? But all DZ’s don’t use the ISP, Why?

Let’s take all the given ideas thrown in and come up with something that 51%+ of us can agree is a good idea and will help.

Hook


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

Jun 2, 2003, 2:28 PM
Post #216 of 493 (1269 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Is Ron’s proposal completely fair? No. If implemented it will cause some jumpers to jump at a lower wing loading than they are capable of for a while. What’s the harm in that? Err on the side of safety.

Is my proposal completely fair? No. Same deal. Are the minimum pull altitudes completely fair? No.

Hear hear. If we wait until we come up with the perfect system, then nothing will ever happen. Really. And we might come up with a system that needs to be changed as gear evolves -- 25 years ago, the thought of a first jump student under any square would have been considered a joke.

I think a good system would need to include both recommended minimums, and a way to go beyond them for the truly motivated and talented.

The way to go beyond could be either or any of a formal class (that you have to actually pass), a formal progression (canopy version of the A-card), or individual evaluation and sign-off by a S&TA/canopy control instructor.

Wendy W.


(This post was edited by wmw999 on Jun 2, 2003, 2:29 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 2, 2003, 2:57 PM
Post #217 of 493 (1254 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

>Let’s take all the given ideas thrown in and come up with something
>that 51%+ of us can agree is a good idea and will help.

I see it as a continuum. A list that starts from 100% accepted to 100% effective would be:

1. Do nothing. Talk about it a lot. Hope the culture changes. Hope more DZ's offer the ISP.

2. Spend effort (money, time, etc) on voluntary measures to help educate people. Have USPA sponsor canopy companies to give canopy control seminars. Integrate more canopy stuff into Safety Day, which would still be optional.

2.5 Have USPA sponsor companies that comply with point 2 (say, a free ad) but punish companies that do not (i.e. no ads until you comply.) This was done with BASE for a long time BTW.

3. Create a USPA HP canopy control coach, or add this to the current coach rating. Add a signoff (similar to water training) that gear retailers could use as a 'permission slip' to sell canopies, and DZO's could use if they so choose.

4. Create the same but add a few requirements to the ISP that concentrate on HP canopy flying.

5. Add some HP canopy control requirements to the D-license; as always jumpers could get a restricted D if they do not want to meet those requirements, and want to jump lighter wingloadings. Make the D license a requirement for jumping over X to 1 loadings.

6. Implement Ron's jumps/wingloading BSR, with the ability to 'opt out' through canopy training courses.

7. Mandatory canopy training to a USPA syllabus, and completion of a skill set exam, for everyone before they are allowed to load over 1.2 to 1.

1 will be accepted by everyone and do nothing. 7 will be protested by 80% of the jumpers out there but would very drastically reduce good-canopy injuries and fatalities. The ones in between would split the difference. So the question is probably - at what point will less than 50% not support the above? I would be willing to bet that over 50% would support 1, 2 and 2.5 3 would probably fly since there's still nothing mandatory.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 2, 2003, 3:48 PM
Post #218 of 493 (1242 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Just tying it to jump numbers is absurd. We have all met folks with tons of jumps who are still clueless,
have poor judgement, or no situational awareness, and vice versa.
------------------

Yes John,

But I bet we both know people that could have soloed a plane at 2hrs.... And maybe gotten the Pilots license at 10. But the FAA wants 40.

I

Were you talking to my instructor? (Actually, I was signed off for solo at 3.5 hours)Smile


dreamsville  (D 25528)

Jun 2, 2003, 4:00 PM
Post #219 of 493 (1237 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] [In reply to] Can't Post

I hadn't thought of this 'til now. Suppose Jesse has a wingload of 1.2, the regulated limit for his jump numbers, say 200. Over the summer he, for whatever reason, gains 50 lbs, placing him outside of his safety limit of 1.2. Being still well under 500 jumps (let's say he isn't even at 300 yet), is the rig he bought grandfathered in for him?
|


(This post was edited by dreamsville on Jun 2, 2003, 4:01 PM)


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 2, 2003, 4:03 PM
Post #220 of 493 (1232 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dreamsville] [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I hadn't thought of this 'til now. Suppose Jesse has a wingload of 1.2, recommended for his jump numbers, say 200. Over the summer he, for whatever reason, gains 50 lbs, placing him outside of his safety limit of 1.2. Being still well under 500 jumps (let's say he isn't even at 300 yet), is the rig he bought grandfathered in for him?
|

Ask Johny C whether he should have been grandfathered in to do a fat hook after a layoff and having gained some weight more than he had when he was really current. Having a guide sheet to go by makes it fairly easy for a manifest to say "You need to go talk to an instructor about this." S&TAs can't be everywhere all the time but everyone has to go through manifest.

Chris Schindler


towerrat  (D 28189)

Jun 2, 2003, 4:57 PM
Post #221 of 493 (1216 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] [In reply to] Can't Post

good call hook


oldnewbie  (A License)

Jun 2, 2003, 5:09 PM
Post #222 of 493 (1212 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Diverdrive. I just wanted to comment about the *preaching to the choir* comment that you made. Maybe this is often true, but not always!! Reading the posts about this subject is education, and for some of us, it is a great education. Four months ago i was going back to the dropzone to jump where i took my lessons at (had 25 jumps). I was reading the posts from dropzone.com and the topic was canopy control lessons. I decided to take these lessons when i got to the dropzone.Smile I was going to downsize to what many people said, and that would be a wingloading of 1.2 (remember, 25 jumps)Pirate I KNEW BETTER FROM READING THESE POSTSSmile So sometimes preaching to the choir you can reach new members.Wink

Zenister said that going to the dropzone and asking some of the better people for advice can work. Like Zenister, I asked around and got the name of a GREAT canopy control teacher from about 15 people at the dropzone. This person was also a PST qualified competitor. All i wanted to do was to learn how to land safely at a much smaller dropzone that would be my home dropzone. He sounded like many of YOU people. Keep the large canopy, and learn how to REALLY FLY IT..Shocked It cost me 2 whole jump tickets over 2 days and 10 jumps!! (and yes , i tried to pay him, but he said no) He also said to jump this canopy for a hundred or two hundred jump and learn everything about it, you will be shocked at what you can do with it. So asking other people also works, sometimes!!Cool

It was funny though, at this large dropzone with lots of great divers, most of the people that were *great* thought that canopy control lessons were a great idea!!

So the education idea CAN work, if the people (myself included) will listen and learn.Laugh

I'll leave the mandatory things to others. I personally don't mind the mandatory max wingloading one bit. But i will admit, it will not affect me since i won't be downsizing that much.Laugh


Ron

Jun 3, 2003, 5:06 AM
Post #223 of 493 (1170 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Then please come up with a better plan


Ron

Jun 3, 2003, 5:35 AM
Post #224 of 493 (1162 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Were you talking to my instructor? (Actually, I was signed off for solo at 3.5 hours)

Nope but I went solo at 4.0 hrs....I had to wait till I had a medical in hand.

Ron


Ron

Jun 3, 2003, 5:36 AM
Post #225 of 493 (1159 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

Can we agree that something needs to be done?

Ron


markbaur  (D 6108)

Jun 3, 2003, 6:17 AM
Post #226 of 493 (1285 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Can we agree that something needs to be done?

How about banning swoop ponds, swoop competitions, the PST, and any surf longer than 20 feet?

Mark


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jun 3, 2003, 6:56 AM
Post #227 of 493 (1272 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How about banning swoop ponds, swoop competitions, the PST, and any surf longer than 20 feet?
Not gonna happen. Swooping is here to stay. We aren't going to stop our new jumpers from wanting to be like JC. If I were 15 years younger, I'd want to be like JC!

Since swooping isn't going away, doesn't it make sense to give our newbies a safe and sane progression from first jump to swooping the pond? Which organization in the US is the logical choice to come up with and oversee such a training progression? Which part of what we're doing now is working? How do we make quality advanced canopy control training available to every person with 20 jumps and a desire to swoop without USPA's involvement?


Ron

Jun 3, 2003, 7:11 AM
Post #228 of 493 (1266 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How about banning swoop ponds, swoop competitions, the PST, and any surf longer than 20 feet?

Or we could could just troll when people are trying to do something good for everyone. Then we can bury our heads in the sand and pretend there is not a problem.

Ron


markbaur  (D 6108)

Jun 3, 2003, 6:43 PM
Post #229 of 493 (1222 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Re: [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Or we could could just troll..

I'm not trolling. Your claim is that peer pressure causes unqualified jumpers to use canopies they're not prepared for. Part of that peer pressure is watching cool jumpers dragging a toe through the swoop pond -- or seeing reports of swoop competitions in Parachutist. They see the behavior, they seek to emulate it. If you are serious about reducing the pressure to downsize, you'd at least consider de-glamorizing fast canopies.

Mark


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jun 4, 2003, 9:39 PM
Post #230 of 493 (1165 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Should they ban 1200 jump veterans that face plant 50% of the time? Who will do the inspections? Would jumpers be able to lie about what gear they are jumping? Its really not their job you know. Its YOUR job not to kill YOURSELF. lets try that for a change.


Ron

Jun 5, 2003, 2:10 AM
Post #231 of 493 (1148 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Should they ban 1200 jump veterans that face plant 50% of the time?

They should be told to get more training. But if they are face planting, and not getting carried away to the hospital...It is not my concern.

In reply to:
Who will do the inspections?

S&TA's, or I's and DZO's.

In reply to:
Would
jumpers be able to lie about what gear they are jumping?

Yep just like what happens now with out of date reserves.


In reply to:
Its really not their job you know. Its YOUR job
not to kill YOURSELF. lets try that for a change.

We have been trying it for a couple of years..Its not working. People are still getting killed.

You could ask why do we have min pull altitudes? Wind limits? Need to have a PRO to do types of demos? Night jumps rules? Rules for CRW...Why do we make students have AAD's and RSL's?

All of these are just rules and toys to make the sport safer. By haveing them you take some personal freedom away, but you add saftey for all.

You see the issue is most 300 jump wonders are 10 feet tall and bullet proof. At least they think they are. They make bad choices because they don't know...But they also don't listen, because they think they know it all.

So as you see...Leaving to the individual jumper is not working, and regulation, like it or not is all around you, and this sport.

Ron


markbaur  (D 6108)

Jun 5, 2003, 5:52 AM
Post #232 of 493 (1120 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You could ask why do we have min pull altitudes? Wind limits? Need to have a PRO to do types of demos? Night jumps rules? Rules for CRW...Why do we make students have AAD's and RSL's?

One more time: Although the USPA does have minimum pull altitudes for all skydivers, it does not have wind limits for licensed jumpers; the PRO requirements are for the protection of the spectators, not the skydivers; the night jump "rules" are recommendations, not requirements (except for needing to do 2 for a D license), as are the CRW requirements. Requiring equipment for unlicensed jumpers is not the same as requiring equipment for licensed jumpers.

We've done pretty well with the RW/FF/night jump/CRW/etc. recommendations in the SIM, section 6. What we need is your sub-section on Canopy Progression Training. Can you have a draft ready for the S&T Committee's meeting in July?

Mark


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jun 5, 2003, 8:19 AM
Post #233 of 493 (1102 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What we need is your sub-section on Canopy Progression Training. Can you have a draft ready for the S&T Committee's meeting in July?
I believe Ron has already been good to his word and has already put out more effort on this than many of his detractors. He made the effort to contact USPA and express his concerns, along with some suggestions for ways to address the issue. Even if I disagreed with him, I'd still have to respect the fact that he cares enough to do something.

Did you read hooknswoop's proposal? Seems like a great starting point for the discussion to me, and every member of the S&T committee has received an email containing it.

I received an email from the committee chairman yesterday stating that the issue will be brought up at the summer meeting.

Speaking only for myself (although I know others share my views), I am not unshakably for regulation - what I am for is whatever will reduce the number of jumpers being injured or killed under perfectly good canopies. And I mean that regardless of the number of jumps the injured or dead person has - I'd be for a requirement that every jumper in the US take an advanced canopy control course.

Regulation is not the ideal choice but it is an option that should be explored.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 5, 2003, 9:05 AM
Post #234 of 493 (1092 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>I'd be for a requirement that every jumper in the US take an
>advanced canopy control course.

Hmm. I wouldn't be, because that would expose someone to risk that they don't need to take. I would be for a requirement that anyone who wants to jump, say, a Stiletto 97 at 100 jumps take a canopy control course.

That's one of the issues that's going to come up. You can't learn how to land a high performance canopy without landing a high performance canopy, and that means that you have to have students take risks. "I don't want to risk my life like that, I just want to jump my Spectre 190 forever!" is a valid argument against someone taking a HP canopy class.


Steel  (D 23585)

Jun 5, 2003, 9:20 AM
Post #235 of 493 (1086 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

You know this minimum pull altitude example is getting a bit old. As far as I am concerned the minimum pull altitude is too low as it is. I rarely pull under 3,000. In the past year I have only pulled at 2500 when I have been forced to because its what the old-timer RW guys want to do
It seems to me like passing a law that you can't drink amonia. As I understood it the minimum pull altitudes were not USPA BSRs. It was just USPA's way of explaining hey if you drink enough amonia it will kill you, so don't be stupid. In this case if you pull too low and have a malfunction you won't be able to jump again cause you will die on impact.
Its not like wingloading that could depend on your skill. Its just plain and simple we all get line twists from time to time. (no matter how good you pack or your body position is) If you deploy a 1000 feet then get line twists on a high performance canopy you will die or serious injure yourself. So the comparison does not follow. Its just not the same.


Michele  (B 26874)

Jun 5, 2003, 9:26 AM
Post #236 of 493 (1084 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Bill, you've lost me.

Am I understanding you right? Only those who believe they should be able to fly a HP canopy should take a canopy class?

If so, you are promulgating a common misconception about canopy classes, and leading some people astray. Canopy class is not necessarily about HP canopies and landings...it's about understanding how what you fly flies, learning life saving techniques, and learning how to not need them in the first place.

Quote:
because that would expose someone to risk that they don't need to take.
How did my taking a class expose me to any more risk than throwing myself at the ground repeatedly?

Quote:
I just want to jump my Spectre 190 forever!" is a valid argument against someone taking a HP canopy class.
Sorry, Bill....it's not. Again, you're spreading the misconception that a canopy control class is only valid if you want to swoop....uh, kinda like the people who told me to not waste my time/money taking the class 'cause I didn't want to swoop, but just wanted to learn more and be safer.

I really hope I misunderstood your comment...but I don't think I have. Please clarify for me if I have.

Ciels-
Michele


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 5, 2003, 9:44 AM
Post #237 of 493 (1076 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Michele] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

> Only those who believe they should be able to fly a HP canopy
> should take a canopy class?

Sorta the opposite. Everyone _should_ take a canopy class. The only people who should be _required_ to are the ones at very high risk for injury or death i.e. the people with very low jump numbers loading their canopies heavily.

It's like a PRO rating. Everyone should be able to land their canopies accurately. The only people forced to demonstrate it are the ones who are at a very high risk if they can't i.e. the people landing in the middle of crowds at a demo. Just because no one will make you land in a 10 meter circle doesn't mean that working on accuracy isn't a good idea.

>How did my taking a class expose me to any more risk than throwing
>myself at the ground repeatedly?

In your case it does not. However, you chose (wisely, I think) a canopy where a landing mistake leads to your falling down, not to your near-certain injury or death. Given that, it should be your choice as to how you learn to fly your canopy. You are in a position where you _can_ learn from your mistakes. You chose to take a canopy class, and that's great - I encourage everyone to do that. I just don't think that everyone should be required to do that, unless they want to take unusual risks by jumping a small canopy early in their jumping careers.

However, let's take the case of a class set up to allow people to jump 1.5 to 1 canopies, one intended to help someone with 35 jumps to safely jump a Stiletto 120. The only way to see if someone can safely land a Stiletto loaded at 1.5 to 1 is to have them _jump_ that Stiletto loaded at 1.5 to 1, or jump a progression of canopies up to that loading. That's a risk that some people may choose not to take, and so should not be required to take it.

One might respond "But that's different! I just wanted to learn how to land my big Triathalon. I wouldn't jump that 1.5 to 1 Stiletto." And I agree. Buit if we're talking about a canopy control class that's required before people can jump tiny canopies safely, one that we hope will reduce fatalities under them, it must neccessarily be different than one intended to help jumpers safely land larger canopies.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 5, 2003, 9:57 AM
Post #238 of 493 (1069 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>Its not like wingloading that could depend on your skill.

Uh, yes it is. Some of us open below 500 feet on purpose, and we make damn sure our equipment can handle it. If you were as careful packing your main as I am packing my BASE main then low openings would be quite doable.

Instead, people pack very quickly, use mains that spin up because they're more fun (even if they're less reliable) and don't worry as much about deployment position. As a result, pulling at 800 feet is a lot more dangerous.

>If you deploy a 1000 feet then get line twists on a high
>performance canopy you will die or serious injure yourself.

Are you forced to jump a HP canopy? Or did you make the decision to jump a less-reliable but more fun main? One of the many skills you need in BASE, or to open low in skydiving, is the wisdom to choose good gear, gear that will keep you alive under the conditions you expect to experience. Just like landing a HP canopy.


Michele  (B 26874)

Jun 5, 2003, 10:15 AM
Post #239 of 493 (1060 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The only people who should be _required_ to are the ones at very high risk for injury or death i.e. the people with very low jump numbers loading their canopies heavily.

I would be very interested to see any sort of statistical assessment of injuries with jumpers under 100 jumps...IIRC, 1/2 of "my group" (the 4 who went through AFF at the same time and same place as I did) who did not injure themselves significantly (in one situation badly - and he will not walk without a limp) in the first 50-75 jumps. And I was really at risk of being the 3rd...that's a pretty high percentage, don't you think? 50%? So I would be curious to see statistical data to see if I am in the outlier group or part of the majority...

It would seem to me that people don't actually understand the risks - there is a lot of lip service; "Yes, I understand, this will kill me"..."yes, I understand, it's too small for me"..."yes, I understand how to dig myself out of the corner", but honestly, there isn't an understanding on how to fly the canopy. Look at the discussions about keeping a canopy pressurized in turbulence - there isn't a consensus. And those who do talk intelligently about it, and debate the issues, have hundreds if not thousands of jumps...groundspeed v. airspeed, for example, and many others.

No, you don't have to understand how the engine works to drive a car...but you do need to understand simple things like braking, opening the door, where the keyhole is, the rules of the road, which pedal does what. Same thing with canopy flight. There is a basic understanding of why and how things work which should be taught....damn it!...and are not taught. For some people, it's intuitive. For more, it is not.
Quote:
However, you chose (wisely, I think) a canopy where a landing mistake leads to your falling down, not to your near-certain injury or death
Why do you think I chose that particular canopy and not something else? I am not smarter than average, nor wiser. I am not unique (as much as I'd like to think I am). So why did I chose that one, Bill?

Quote:
I just don't think that everyone should be required to do that, unless they want to take unusual risks by jumping a small canopy early in their jumping careers.
O.K., here's an example. Someone with 1500 jumps at 1:1 on a spectre decides they have enough experience, enough understanding of the canopy, and enough understanding of conditions to radically switch to a HP, fully elliptical loaded at 2:1. Should he take the class?

Quote:
That's a risk that some people may choose not to take, and so should not be required to take it.
I would not take it. And I doubt that many instructors would teach it. Fortunately, your understanding of what is taught to the 35 jump number person is wrong. How can I say this....

Canopy control classes are not necessarily about HP landings..

I know today exactly the same amount about swooping and flying a small canopy as I did at jump number 39...canopy classes are not necessarily about swooping.
Quote:
Buit if we're talking about a canopy control class that's required before people can jump tiny canopies safely, one that we hope will reduce fatalities under them, it must neccessarily be different than one intended to help jumpers safely land larger canopies.
You're talking about that, Bill. I am not. I advocate a mandatory class before getting your A - which would teach basics. Pure and simple. Others advocate a testing system which will make you demonstrate a certain degree of competence. I don't know enough yet about that aspect of it to comment intelligently.

ANd I have to get to the office right now...sorry...

Ciels-
Michele


Premier SkymonkeyONE  (D 12501)

Jun 5, 2003, 10:32 AM
Post #240 of 493 (1052 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
You know this minimum pull altitude example is getting a bit old. As far as I am concerned the minimum pull altitude is too low as it is. I rarely pull under 3,000. In the past year I have only pulled at 2500 when I have been forced to because its what the old-timer RW guys want to do.

This is one point where I totally agree with Bruno. I cannot remember the last time I pulled below three grand. Those of us under very-high performance mains have raised our minimum pull altitude over the last few years to deal with our very "different" openings and to make time to sort out our sliders, etc, and to map a route through the normal high traffic. Hell, I dump as soon as my skydive is over and I am clear of my co-jumpers and know I am low enough that those behind me aren't likely to fall past me. Dumping under a crossbrace at two grand is incredibly nutty. That said, if I am in a bigger skydive where I "must" dump lower because it's where my wave of the skydive is mandated to open, then I will put on a rig with a larger, easier to manage main.

Chuck


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 5, 2003, 10:39 AM
Post #241 of 493 (1052 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Michele] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>Why do you think I chose that particular canopy and not something
> else? I am not smarter than average, nor wiser. I am not unique
>(as much as I'd like to think I am). So why did I chose that one, Bill?

I dunno. Why?

>Someone with 1500 jumps at 1:1 on a spectre decides they have
> enough experience, enough understanding of the canopy, and
> enough understanding of conditions to radically switch to a HP, fully
> elliptical loaded at 2:1. Should he take the class?

Yes, he should. I don't think, for him, it should be mandatory.

>Canopy control classes are not necessarily about HP landings..

Didn't say that they were. I'm not talking about a class that gives you enough information to safely land a 1:1 Spectre, I'm talking about a class that essentially 'clears' people with very low experience to land much higher loadings. Not all canopy control classes are the same, just as all RW training camps are not the same. Some are big way, some are 4-way etc.

>You're talking about that, Bill. I am not.

Yeah; that's what the thread is about - restrictions placed on low time jumpers to help prevent their untimely demise due to jumping canopies they can not yet control well. Ron's original proposal was a BSR that restricted jumpers to certain loadings based on their experience. I proposed a canopy control class that would let you 'opt out' of those rules by learning to fly (and then demonstrating that skill) on a highly loaded canopy. Since the purpose of the class would be to get you the training needed to safely land that sort of canopy (i.e. to 'opt out' of the restrictions) it would neccessarily be about landing heavily loaded canopies. Not everyone would choose to take such a class.

>I advocate a mandatory class before getting your A - which would
>teach basics. Pure and simple.

I think we're halfway there already with the ISP. It contains a decent amount of canopy training, and if an instructor takes it seriously (i.e. watches you do the maneuvers and watches you land) then you can get a lot of that with what we have now. The problem is - how do you get DZ's to do that?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 5, 2003, 10:42 AM
Post #242 of 493 (1049 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SkymonkeyONE] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>This is one point where I totally agree with Bruno. I cannot
>remember the last time I pulled below three grand.

I agree too. I guess the analogy would be - what do you do with someone who regularly opens their crossbraced canopy at 1200 feet? If they explain that they can handle it, they're head up, is that sufficient explanation? Do you chalk it up to "well, they'll learn" - or do you use a BSR to keep them from essentially making a huge mistake that could easily injure or kill them?


Michele  (B 26874)

Jun 5, 2003, 10:50 AM
Post #243 of 493 (1045 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I think we're halfway there already with the ISP. It contains a decent amount of canopy training, and if an instructor takes it seriously (i.e. watches you do the maneuvers and watches you land) then you can get a lot of that with what we have now. The problem is - how do you get DZ's to do that?
Agreed. And exactly my question.

Ciels-
Michele


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 5, 2003, 10:51 AM
Post #244 of 493 (1045 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Michele] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I advocate a mandatory class before getting your A - which would teach basics. Pure and simple.

this is exactly what i think SHOULD be done.. at Eloy I got a very good over veiw of the 'basics' through out AFF, and then went and asked for more from some of the local canopy experts.

a solid foundation allows someone to improve much more quickly than anyone trying to "figure it out alone".

when someone wants to learn to freefly what does everyone say? well everyone i've heard "Get a few coach jumps so you dont learn bad habits you'll have to fix later on."

obviously this is recommendation not a requirement, just as (IMO) canopy control classes should be after your a licensed jumper. Additional training is simply the smart thing to do, unfortunately everyone isnt smart, nor will they ever be..

if some one has been flailing on their head for 50 jumps and doesnt want to get any coaching i just wont jump with them..

i cant think of a single endeavor that you can learn well on your own without having a sound grasp of the fundamentals first.


Steel  (D 23585)

Jun 5, 2003, 11:03 AM
Post #245 of 493 (1038 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

About base jumping; Base jumping is like Bullriding you take you life and play Russian roulette with it everytime you do it. (not that I wouldn't bullride, you can see the attachment) But if you think that a careful packjob and stable body position will assure you reasonable safety then you need to talk to some base jumpers.(base jumpers with more than 100 jumps) I know a few of them and all of them have one thing in common, shit has gone wrong at one point or another. 180 degree openings have put them into walls or towers. Longer than expected snivels have resulted in broken ankles or legs and we all know the incidents get only more serious. As I have always said I believe in personal freedom above all else but if you are going to ban something in skydiving then I think base jumping should be first on the list, as it is the most dangerous with the least to gain.
Attachments: 512[1].jpg (59.0 KB)


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 5, 2003, 11:09 AM
Post #246 of 493 (1041 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

BASE jumping is not skydiving.

its not regulated by anything other than other jumpers & manufacturers and even if there were laws specifically against it people would still be doing it..(and are off things the law doesnt like)

its one to the very attractive things about it, and i think one of the places where the real mavericks went when skydiving became more about 'safety' and less about 'freedom' & self determination


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 5, 2003, 11:21 AM
Post #247 of 493 (1034 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

> . . .but if you are going to ban something in skydiving then I think
> base jumping should be first on the list, as it is the most dangerous
> with the least to gain.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't think USPA should get involved with BASE jumping at all, nor do I think that USPA should start advocating single-parachute systems for skydiving. I agree that it's too dangerous (and too fraught with other legal issues) to bring into skydiving.

At the same time, USPA isn't all there is to aerial sports. USPA doesn't regulate paragliding, or BASE jumping, or even military jumping. All it does is regulate (loosely) civilian sport jumping. And since that what it does, large numbers of people dying under small main canopies _is_ an issue it should take on. And if there were a new BSR regulating small canopy sizes or requiring more training, heck, jumpers could go to Lodi and jump there. It wouldn't solve the problem, but as USPA is pretty big, it would go a long way towards solving it.


Ron

Jun 5, 2003, 11:31 AM
Post #248 of 493 (1027 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Steel] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You know this minimum pull altitude example is getting a bit old. As far as I am concerned the minimum pull
altitude is too low as it is. I rarely pull under 3,000.

Well my min pull altitude example is very relevent...

You see many years ago there were a bunch of jumpers that used to hum the hell out of it...They all claimed that it was their right to do it, and that they knew the risks. To make them pull high was to limit their freedom...It's their right to pull low if they wish...they knew what they were doing...Bla,Bla,Bla.

Problem was they were bouncing...And they were bouncing at an alarming rate. Someone said "Hey! people are getting killed because they are pulling low. Something should be done!".

So, people tried to educate them...But the low pullers said THEY were smarter, better packers, faster with the emergency procedures than the ones that bounced.

People still bounced from pulling low. Finally the PCA (I think, it might have been the USPA) said enough was enough. And the minumum pull altitudes were put in....Different hights for different skill level...Which oddly enough were based on jump numbers.

The freedom of low pull crowd..fought like hell. Claimed it was against the personal fredom of the sport..ect.

Now people like you are saying that they are to low....

Funny thing is 20 years ago you would be one of the ones pulling low.

In reply to:
Its not like wingloading that could depend on your skill. Its just plain and simple we all get line twists from
time to time. (no matter how good you pack or your body position is) If you deploy a 1000 feet then get line
twists on a high performance canopy you will die or serious injure yourself. So the comparison does not
follow. Its just not the same.

I don't know, I bet I could get a Raven and pack it to open quick. I bet I could pull at 1200 all day, and I bet I could handle MOST of the mals I would get. See, I said MOST...I am not perfect..No one is including those that load pocket sized canopies.

Now do you see how it is the same?

Same argument, different times, and over something else. But the same argument.

The argument is over a problem that did back then/is now killing people at an alarming rate. The ones that see the problem and are doing things about it, and the ones that don't see the problem, or don't agree with the proposed solution.

Reasons are limit of personal freedom. Not letting people do what they want Vs guiding people to make smart choices through education, regulation, or both.

I bet guys like me, and you argued like this over a beer 20 years ago.

Ron


(This post was edited by Ron on Jun 5, 2003, 11:38 AM)


markbaur  (D 6108)

Jun 5, 2003, 2:47 PM
Post #249 of 493 (990 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You see many years ago there were a bunch of jumpers that used to hum the hell out of it...They all claimed that it was their right to do it, and that they knew the risks. To make them pull high was to limit their freedom...It's their right to pull low if they wish...they knew what they were doing...Bla,Bla,Bla.

Problem was they were bouncing...And they were bouncing at an alarming rate. Someone said "Hey! people are getting killed because they are pulling low. Something should be done!".

So, people tried to educate them...But the low pullers said THEY were smarter, better packers, faster with the emergency procedures than the ones that bounced.

People still bounced from pulling low. Finally the PCA (I think, it might have been the USPA) said enough was enough. And the minumum pull altitudes were put in....Different hights for different skill level...Which oddly enough were based on jump numbers.

The freedom of low pull crowd..fought like hell. Claimed it was against the personal fredom of the sport..ect.

This is the first time (oops!) I've heard this. Please cite your reference.

Mark


livendive  (D 21415)

Jun 5, 2003, 3:46 PM
Post #250 of 493 (977 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You could ask why do we have min pull altitudes?

Honest question here. How long have minimum pull altitudes been in the BSRs and were they really the fix for low pulls? Or was it something else that reduced our low pull fatality stats?

Blues,
Dave


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jun 5, 2003, 6:17 PM
Post #251 of 493 (1743 views)
Shortcut
Re: [livendive] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

A few open questions:

What is the current system to prevent jumpers from flying canopys they can't handle?

Is the current system for preventing jumpers from flying canopys they can't handle insufficient?

What should our 'goal' be?

How many injuries under good canopys per 1000 jumps is acceptable?

How many fatalities under good canopies per 1000 jumps is acceptable?

How would you (a hypothetical question), as an Instructor (you may be an Instructor, we haven’t gotten to the hypothetical part yet), take someone from 0 skydives to 1000, downsizing and progressing as a canopy pilot, with the eventual goal of high performance landings, with the goal of zero injuries along the way? Assume you can spend as much time as necessary in the classroom and jump with them as much as you need to reach this goal and your ‘student’ can afford to downsize/side step canopys as you see fit.

Hook


nathaniel

Jun 5, 2003, 6:59 PM
Post #252 of 493 (1733 views)
Shortcut
Re: [livendive] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
How long have minimum pull altitudes been in the BSRs and were they really the fix for low pulls? Or was it something else that reduced our low pull fatality stats?

And another question, has the fatality rate decreased as a result of the minimum pull altitude, or have people just found new ways to seriously injure / kill themselves?

like Mr. Dave, honestly curious. I don't know the numbers

nathaniel


geronimo

Jun 5, 2003, 9:48 PM
Post #253 of 493 (1712 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

I have an idea on this. Many times when USPA looks at some issue like this they want some data or a pilot study done. The results of the pilot study provide answers to the myriad of questions. A pilot study may validate procedures or rules. Data from other countries may not be applicable here. How do you get the 256-jump wonder on a 1.6 WL to go back to a 1.2 WL? Or you would do a longer term study that starts with all the new graduates from your DZ and any new jumpers visiting your DZ.

So I suggest that you do a pilot study. You have over a month to get very preliminary data for the next BOD mtg. What you'd need to do is find a DZ (or 2 or 3) that would be willing to implement your WL Limits on a temporary basis. After the month is up you could continue it.

So step 1 is to convince a DZO.
You could probably get ZHills & Billvon could get Buzz's place.

Step 2: State the 'rules'. This looks like a good starting place.
100 jumps Max 1.1 Wing load
200 jumps Max 1.2 Wing load
300 jumps Max 1.3 Wing load
400 jumps Max 1.4 Wing load
500 jumps Max 1.5 Wing load

Step 3: Enforce the rules.
You have to figure out the logistics of collecting the exit weights and canopy info from each jumper as they boarded a plane. Then if someone is over the limit - what do you do then? Make them get a different parachute? Are there other demos available?
Or do you implement this as an honor system. Then if you catch someone over the appropriate WL, you do something. What is that something?

Step 4: Track the jumps.
You need data that says these people with these many jumps did jumps at these WLs. There were x many injuries or fatalities. How does this compare to previous injury & fatality data?

Step 5: Track the people 'breaking' the rules.
Did anyone switch rigs? Did someone load up on weights? Did someone have 3 buddies carry 10 lbs. each on board & then give all the extra weight to the hotshot? Did anyone pad their big container with newspaper plus tiny canopy - just to get by the gear check? Or did people go jump someplace else? Or did people forge their logbooks?

Step 6: Track the after 'Mommy Rule' behavior.
Did jumpers that were under the 'protective blanket' fare better once they were unlimited in WL? This definitely calls for a longer term study.

Other Stuff:
You'll probably find out who supports this and who is against it. Who are those people and why? What adjustments to the rules could be done? What type of PR type work has to be done?

Quote:
I propose that the USPA do something about this.

Remember, you are USPA!

Quote:
Skydiving is a sport that has dangers....One of the jobs of the USPA is
to enact BSR's to protect the population from their own bad choices.

That is one way to look at the BSRs.
I like to think of the BSRs as the societal (aka the US skydiving community) acceptance of a given level of risk.

If USPA's task really was to protect people from their stupidity - then the entire SIM would be requirements and not recommendations.


Ron

Jun 6, 2003, 1:44 AM
Post #254 of 493 (1699 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geronimo] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Not a bad idea....I doubt it has a chance in hell of working.

If it is not a rule...people will ignore it.
I am not an S&TA, so I have no juice at the DZ.
The DZM will not implement it if there is even one chance of a guy going to another DZ.
Central FL, has enough big DZ's that they can just drive an hour and be at another big DZ.

A mth is not long enough for this type of study to be done.
with 12 fatalities a year from this group, for this reason...And an unknown # of injuries. The chances of 3 DZ's having enough info in one mth is not likley..The whole nation, it is possible in a mth, but still not likley.



In reply to:
How do you get the
256-jump wonder on a 1.6 WL to go back to a 1.2 WL?
You would not be able to...they would go somewhere else...Besides if this went into effect, they would be granfathered in anyway. This would start with the current batch of students.



In reply to:
Step 3: Enforce the rules.
You have to figure out the logistics of collecting the exit weights and canopy info from each jumper as they
boarded a plane. Then if someone is over the limit - what do you do then? Make them get a different
parachute? Are there other demos available?
Or do you implement this as an honor system. Then if you catch someone over the appropriate WL, you do
something. What is that something?

In the trial phase you really could not do much...just not let them jump that canopy...But thats why it would go into effect on the current student group. They don't know what they will miss. The current overloaded crowd with either survive, or die...Some it seems would rather die than be regulated.


In reply to:
Step 5: Track the people 'breaking' the rules.
Did anyone switch rigs? Did someone load up on weights? Did someone have 3 buddies carry 10 lbs. each on
board & then give all the extra weight to the hotshot? Did anyone pad their big container with newspaper
plus tiny canopy - just to get by the gear check? Or did people go jump someplace else? Or did people forge
their logbooks?

there is almost no way to track this...They are not going to tell you.

In reply to:
Remember, you are USPA!

Notice I am doing something?

A study is not a bda idea, but it would have to be more DZ's, and longer.

Besides we are only discussing the fix...We know the problem.

Ron


markbaur  (D 6108)

Jun 6, 2003, 5:05 AM
Post #255 of 493 (1685 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
if this went into effect, they would be granfathered in

Why grandfather luck? If a student made a successful landing in unexpected 20 mph winds, would you waiver the winds to 20 mph for his subsequent jumps?

Were any of the injuries/fatalities on the first jump at that WL? Why not protect current as well as future jumpers, by requiring them all to use safer equipment?

Mark


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jun 6, 2003, 6:22 AM
Post #256 of 493 (1673 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

 
All of these are just rules and toys to make the sport safer. By haveing them you take some personal freedom away, but you add saftey for all.

So as you see...Leaving to the individual jumper is not working, and regulation, like it or not is all around you, and this sport.
Ron_________________________________________________
I don't see it as simply regulation. I see it as a way to give our governing body another job to do without getting the true support of all its members. I see the potential for added costs to potential students in the form of extra classes making it prohibitive for some to finish training, I hear we are hurting for new members as it is. Or other costs put on dz operators or schools if they have to host more mandatory schooling or policeing. These costs will be absorbed by the fun jumpers and new students probably not the tandems. Here we go tandem mills bye, bye fun jumpers and occasional deathwish in training jumper.
Maybe your are ready to pay more for jumps to cover any accrued costs passed on to the operation and then you. I am not. I am prepared to listen to any advice about my skydiving that I can get and seek it out regularly. Shared knowledge
Its been said you, we ,us are the uspa. We need to make the change. Help train others about canopy flight. Those that feel so positively about the canopy dilemma should take a very aggressive role in being a positive role models for others, Do I "have" to fly a crossbraced? Can I get on a fun-safe- perky spectre at reasonable wing loading and show its value until someone has accrued the proper skills? Make that look good.
Don't get me wrong I'm not tellin anyone what to fly. Just do our parts for change before we ask someone else to and then cry when we get the bill for it.


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 6, 2003, 6:43 AM
Post #257 of 493 (1671 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Michele] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Canopy class is not necessarily about HP canopies and landings...it's about understanding how what you fly flies, learning life saving techniques, and learning how to not need them in the first place.

Michele, you are supposed to get that training in your AFF / SL / IAD student training. If you don't then ask for your money back because they screwed you. (Not really you Michele. Just anyone who doesn't get that training in their course.) I think this is the biggest failing of the current instructional program as a whole in the US. They are not teaching what is needed to survive on canopies after student status. People are spending money on canopy classes that teach what should have already been covered. People are getting ripped off these days. Not by the canopy schools. They do exactly what they advertise. I'm talking about any program that does not give the basics of canopy control. The only instruction that some seem to give is on the radio "Left, left, left, left, hands up let if fly........flair". Well that doesn't cut it anymore in the modern world. Hense, our current dillema. The problem becomes evident when people try to downsize and have no one on one instruction on how to do it. So, they go with what they think they know and what they think they've seen. Then they pound in or get killed.

So is the wingloading BSR a bandaid to a broken instructional program? I think that is part of it. But then again, I also have support for it. This debate will go on and on for a long time.


(This post was edited by diverdriver on Jun 6, 2003, 6:44 AM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jun 6, 2003, 7:00 AM
Post #258 of 493 (1663 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I don't see it as simply regulation. I see it as a way to give our governing body another job to do without getting the true support of all its members

What would the new job be? Add a paragraph to the SIM's?

Quote:
I see the potential for added costs to potential students in the form of extra classes making it prohibitive for some to finish training, I hear we are hurting for new members as it is.

Ron's (and my) proposals don't affect the cost of the "A" license one cent. Ron's proposal doesn't have any mandatory canopy courses in it, costing the jumper more money. The class is an option if they wish to exceed the wingloading maximum for their number of jumps.

Quote:
Or other costs put on dz operators or schools if they have to host more mandatory schooling or policeing.

The DZ would/could make money off the canopy courses. The S & TA position is not a paid position. Any 'policing' they do is free of cost to either USPA or the DZ.

Quote:
These costs will be absorbed by the fun jumpers and new students probably not the tandems.

What costs? If anything the DZ will make more money from their cut of any canopy courses.

Quote:
Here we go tandem mills bye, bye fun jumpers and occasional deathwish in training jumper.

You sound equally disappointed about the perceived demise fun-jumper oriented DZ's as you are about students with a 'death wish'.

Quote:
Maybe your are ready to pay more for jumps to cover any accrued costs passed on to the operation and then you. I am not. I am prepared to listen to any advice about my skydiving that I can get and seek it out regularly. Shared knowledge

What costs? It is great you are still willing to learn, keep it up.

Quote:
Its been said you, we ,us are the uspa. We need to make the change. Help train others about canopy flight. Those that feel so positively about the canopy dilemma should take a very aggressive role in being a positive role models for others,


I teach canopy skills and I am sure Ron does also. Obviously a few people (there are others) are not preventing the increase in landing incidents (injuries and fatalities) with jumpers in over their heads with their current canopy. Is flying a cross-braced canopy setting a bad example?

Quote:
Do I "have" to fly a crossbraced? Can I get on a fun-safe- perky spectre at reasonable wing loading and show its value until someone has accrued the proper skills? Make that look good.

I have two canopies, a Safire 189 and a VX-60. I can land both of them, but the VX is more spectacular. There is no way to make landing my Safire look better than my VX to spectators, not without injury anyway.

Quote:
Don't get me wrong I'm not tellin anyone what to fly. Just do our parts for change before we ask someone else to and then cry when we get the bill for it.

The current system of peer pressure and advice with the occasional grounding or lecture isn't working. Again, I ask, what cost (what bill)?

Hook


rhino  (D 22500)

Jun 6, 2003, 7:02 AM
Post #259 of 493 (1662 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Sorta the opposite. Everyone _should_ take a canopy class. The only people who should be _required_ to are the ones at very high risk for injury or death i.e. the people with very low jump numbers loading their canopies heavily.

Fair enough... But...

I've seen more jumpers get injured because they simply don't know how to flare than I have jumpers that swoop. Granted, swoop injuries tend to be more serious.

I've seen a few swoop accidents. I've seen ten times as many accidents and injuries at 1:1 than at higher loadings. Call me crazy Crazy

Kind of like comparing the European Autobahn to the highway system here in the US. More die on the highway in the US. The people driving 150 miles an hour on a daily basis on the Autobahn tend to know how to drive. When they fuck up they are driving faster so naturally their accidents are worse.

lol

Rhino


(This post was edited by rhino on Jun 6, 2003, 7:04 AM)


Ron

Jun 6, 2003, 7:43 AM
Post #260 of 493 (1650 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Why grandfather luck? If a student made a successful landing in unexpected 20 mph winds, would you waiver
the winds to 20 mph for his subsequent jumps?

Were any of the injuries/fatalities on the first jump at that WL? Why not protect current as well as future
jumpers, by requiring them all to use safer equipment?

Simple, because it would be unfair to tell someone that they can't jump the canopy that they just bought, and that they have to buy another. I could not have bought another new canopy back when I started to skydive. So while it does not make them safer, it is only fair to grandfather them in.

And the equipment is great. The problem is the jumpers don't have the correct skills to match the equipment.

Ron


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 6, 2003, 7:47 AM
Post #261 of 493 (1647 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Besides we are only discussing the fix...We know the problem.

Ron

I disagree. We know some people are dying under canopies and that is certainly a problem, but there has been no serious (i.e. scientific protocol) study done to determine exactly what the scope of the problem is, what level of training is needed to avoid it (if any), what WL limits will prevent it at various levels of experience, what other rules need to be in place.... without triggering "the law of unintended consequences".

Almost all my friends and family think skydiving of any nature is an unacceptable risk. I choose to accept the risk. Some people accept the risk of jumping under tiny canopies. Who am I to criticize?


Ron

Jun 6, 2003, 7:52 AM
Post #262 of 493 (1643 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

expand on this...

What "unintended consequences" do you see?

John, look at last years incident reports.
Tell me what you see.

Ron


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jun 6, 2003, 8:24 AM
Post #263 of 493 (1631 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I hear we are hurting for new members as it is.
So why not do something that might help us retain the ones we have? Providing mandatory training and guidance on canopy control and canopy choice could very well keep jumpers in the sport. Tell them to buy something conservative, then teach them to fly it... they're less likely to be injured under it (thus less likely to quit the sport and sell their gear) and they're less likely to develop gear fear (being scared of your canopy) and therefore less likely to find other things to do on the weekends, quit the sport and sell their gear.

In reply to:
Those that feel so positively about the canopy dilemma should take a very aggressive role in being a positive role models for others <snip> Can I get on a fun-safe- perky spectre at reasonable wing loading and show its value until someone has accrued the proper skills? Make that look good.
Umm.... near as I can tell I've been trying to do just that for several years now... Guess I don't make it look good enough.


Steel  (D 23585)

Jun 6, 2003, 8:27 AM
Post #264 of 493 (1629 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Just for the sake of accuracy, I will make some corrections. There is no European Auto Bahn. That is just Germany. Bahn Is road in German. Next this myth that there is no speed limit in Germany is exactly that, a myth. Anywhere near a city in the German highways has a speed limit of 130 kilometers per hour or slower. It is true that in many open areas on the German highways you are aloud to go as fast as you want. But everytime they have less and less of those parts and its only in Germany anyway. As for going 150 (I assume you mean miles) well that does not happen very often, certainly not on a daily basis as most cars don't even go that fast. Have you ever been in a car going over 130? I have and let me tell you the road looks wierd as hell as white lines are passing really fast and everything is happening really fast. It takes a very high level concentration to do this even semi-safely and for that reason nobody is going to go cruising for a long trip at a speed like that. Cars can't tolerate that speed for a long time. The tires would wear out radically fast, you would need oil changes three times as often and that is assuming you have one hell of a sportscar like a Ferrari testarosa or a Viper because if because you would burn out the engine on a BMW M3 if you kept it consistently at that speed and most people can't even afford a car that fast. If there are more accidents in the American highways its because there are more people driving. I am sure the accident rate in higher in Germany.
Don't get me wrong I hate speed limits. I would love for there to be no speed limits. I believe it should be people's choice if they want to go faster or not. I also believe I could drive faster safely than a lot of people slowly. But I am not going to deny statistics and there are countless studies in the U.S. proving that there are less accidents when they lower the speed limits from 65 to 55.


(This post was edited by Steel on Jun 6, 2003, 8:32 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 6, 2003, 8:54 AM
Post #265 of 493 (1620 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
expand on this...

What "unintended consequences" do you see?

John, look at last years incident reports.
Tell me what you see.

Ron

Unintended consequences are things that proposers of rules do not forsee. Generally happens when rules are passed in a hurry without thinking them through or without adequate data. - example: 4th July Fireworks are much more expensive this year, and many communities have cancelled their displays, because the HSA has caused railroads to stop shipping fireworks. Not one member of Congress saw this as a consequence of HSA when he/she voted for the act. HSA was ill thought out as a knee-jerk response to 9/11. The silly regulation of model rocket motors and severe shortage of dynamite in the coal mining and quarrying industries are other unintended consequences of HSA.

I think your proposal, while well intentioned, is not based on a statistically valid analysis of data. What data do you have to support a specific WL at 200 jumps or 400 jumps? Your proposed rules are arbitrary, and arbitrary rules always have unintended consequences that, by definition, no-one forsees (so don't ask what I forsee).


Ron

Jun 6, 2003, 9:26 AM
Post #266 of 493 (1611 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think your proposal, while well intentioned, is not based on a statistically valid analysis of data.

Nope it was created by a very well known canopy pilot, and bought into by several more.

The problem is clear. People without the correct knowledge, or experence getting high performance equipment.

The solution is much harder.

Education would be the best answer...However the scope of creating a good conclusive program, and the difficulties of putting it inplace nationwide. Is so large that I am not sure it can be done.

Other countries are doing regulation...It can work, and would be easy to implement. It can have an "opt out" for those that show the needed skill sets.

With added training, both in the FJC, and after...In a few years with the added training programs. The regulation might need to be altered, or even done away with (Think about not allowing students on squares, or students must jump spring loaded pilot chutes. Both BSR's that are gone.)


In reply to:
Your proposed rules are arbitrary, and
arbitrary rules always have unintended consequences that, by definition, no-one forsees

And what is the cost of doing nothing?

Ron


Michele  (B 26874)

Jun 6, 2003, 9:46 AM
Post #267 of 493 (1607 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Canopy class is not necessarily about HP canopies and landings...it's about understanding how what you fly flies, learning life saving techniques, and learning how to not need them in the first place.

Michele, you are supposed to get that training in your AFF / SL / IAD student training. If you don't then ask for your money back because they screwed you. (Not really you Michele. Just anyone who doesn't get that training in their course.) I think this is the biggest failing of the current instructional program as a whole in the US.

So I should traipse over to the school where I took AFF, tell them they did it wrong, and demand a refund? I can just imagine the looks I'd get with that.

My point was not that I *should* have gotten better training, my point is that the canopy classes offered where I am are NOT about HP landings exclusively. They didn't teach me to come swooping through the flags, hi-5ing while I'm passing someone as I've planed out 3 inches off the ground.

There is a misconception rampant in most circles that canopy classes won't teach new jumpers; if they do teach new jumpers, what they are teaching is dangerous to new jumpers. most people think the classes are about getting swoop training...and while they do offer that, mostly they teach what perhaps I should've received earlier but didn't.

I am trying desperately to set an example. I talk to whomever will listen/read about my experiences, about my problems, and about finding the solution. I actively encourage canopy control class at ALL levels. Unfortunately, I am not most folks' "peer", and have no pressure value. Some folk have listened to me and my story...I know there are at least two other people who've taken or will shortly take a canopy control class because of things I've said and statements I've made. And hopefully that will snowball...more and more folks will forgo a day of "fun jumps" to learn about flying their canopy...simple stuff, easy stuff...vital stuff.

IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT POTENTIAL W/L RESTRICTIONS, YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

DZOs, S&T's, if you're reading this, do a free canopy day. Have a seminar. Get ahold of jumpers, and teach them something. I dare you. Shit, I doubledog dare you. Do a day of HnP's after a mini-groundschool. Do it. See what happens...who shows up, who cares enough about their own lives to learn a bit more about their canopies. Show me who cares about their jumpers enough to have this seminar.

Competent jumpers, here's your doubledog dare. Take the hand of several newbies and get them aside and teach them the basics. How to flat turn. How to determine flarepoint. What wingloading is and is not. Teach them what you know...YOU give up one day - just one - you can spare that, can't you??? - and help those you see at risk at your dz. Give them a hand. Share your knowledge. Turn it around...if you care, you do something.

Something has to be done. Take the initiative, and do something. Help someone. Give up one single day and focus on junior jumpers' canopy skills. One SINGLE day. Who's life can you change? Find out...

(rapidly jumping off my soapbox...sorry...)

(BTW, Diverdriver, this is not directed at you...really. I promise...)
Ciels-
Michele


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 6, 2003, 10:19 AM
Post #268 of 493 (1594 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>I've seen a few swoop accidents. I've seen ten times as many
>accidents and injuries at 1:1 than at higher loadings. Call me crazy . .

Not at all; I've seen the same thing. But accidents at 1:1 leave you with a broken leg and a good story. A swoop accident at 2:1 is much more likely to leave you dead. The jumper under the 1:1 can learn from his mistake; the dead swooper can't.

When it comes to regulation, I don't see a need to pass rules that keep people from injuring themselves, but I do see a need to pass rules that keep people alive. A death hurts us far, far more than an injury does.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 6, 2003, 10:26 AM
Post #269 of 493 (1586 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>I hear we are hurting for new members as it is.

Where did you hear that? What are you, personally, unable to do now because there are only 34,000 USPA members that you'd be able to do with 500,000 members?

Skydiving is not for everyone, and I have zero desire to try to push our sport on people who are undecided about it.

>These costs will be absorbed by the fun jumpers and new students
>probably not the tandems.

Quite true, but it would be cheaper than what we're paying now. Molly's accident cost her well over $100,000, of which she had to pay about $20,000. A few coached jumps at $40 a piece would have saved her a lot of money.

>Maybe your are ready to pay more for jumps to cover any
>accrued costs passed on to the operation and then you. I am not.

I suspect you would be willing to pay more during your student progression if it saved the life of another skydiver, although you might not realize it until you had 100 jumps or so. I know I would.


livendive  (D 21415)

Jun 6, 2003, 11:44 AM
Post #270 of 493 (1571 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
A few open questions:

What is the current system to prevent jumpers from flying canopys they can't handle?

Peer pressure, the threat of injury/death, self-imposed jump number limits by distributors, advice/restriction by S&TA's and DZO's.

In reply to:
Is the current system for preventing jumpers from flying canopys they can't handle insufficient?

This is a pretty subjective question, but I don't think it's insufficient overall, just inconsistent.

In reply to:
What should our 'goal' be?

Why does there have to be an "our" goal? How about *I* have two goals: a) to have as much fun as I can without injuring or killing myself and b) to encourage my students and the jumpers around me to adopt and pursue a similar goal.

In reply to:
How many injuries under good canopys per 1000 jumps is acceptable?

Tough question to answer in an individualistic approach. I would consider a minor injury (e.g. bruises, sprained ankle, etc) event acceptable every few hundred jumps for myself but not any major injuries. I can't really say how many are acceptable for others.

In reply to:
How many fatalities under good canopies per 1000 jumps is acceptable?

For me, zero. I consider my death an unacceptable outcome. For others? Apparently at least as many as actually die this way.

In reply to:
How would you (a hypothetical question), as an Instructor (you may be an Instructor, we haven’t gotten to the hypothetical part yet), take someone from 0 skydives to 1000, downsizing and progressing as a canopy pilot, with the eventual goal of high performance landings, with the goal of zero injuries along the way? Assume you can spend as much time as necessary in the classroom and jump with them as much as you need to reach this goal and your ‘student’ can afford to downsize/side step canopys as you see fit.

I don't really have the expertise to answer this question. I know how I did it, and I also know I had a couple minor injuries along the way (1 sprained ankle and 1 bruised tailbone as a student, 1 dislocation of my shoulder (at least partially due to pre-existing instability) while swooping a 2.3:1 extreme at around 850 jumps). I made a couple stupid jumps along the way (2.1:1 Nitro at 180 jumps) and wouldn't recommend that others follow the path I took. I guess I probably would suggest logical progression of wingloading and some coaching by better canopy pilots than I am. I wouldn't demand that they follow any particular path but would point out when I thought they were straying too far from my idea of "safety."

Blues,
Dave


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 6, 2003, 12:26 PM
Post #271 of 493 (1558 views)
Shortcut
Re: [livendive] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>For me, zero. I consider my death an unacceptable outcome. For
>others? Apparently at least as many as actually die this way.

So you believe that there are many people out there (including those who have died) who are OK with dying?

Also, I'm not sure I believe you when you say that you consider your death unacceptable. As skydiving carries with it a finite chance of death, a chance that's much greater than most other sports, you must accept that you have a (small) chance of dying on every jump.


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jun 6, 2003, 4:52 PM
Post #272 of 493 (1527 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

 

You sound equally disappointed about the perceived demise fun-jumper oriented DZ's as you are about students with a 'death wish'.

No Derek I am extremely disappointed ( and not just in skydiving ) when we feel we need to enact more rules, more procedure, more costs to a system that is working fine but is being ignored, bypassed or violated by a handful that know they are doing it.

I'm sorry but my FJC and AFF training was good and proper, I got dollar for dollar on its value. So did anyone who went through about the time I did. I'm not saying everybody does everywhere all the time. It was what we needed to be safe under lightly loaded mains in light and variable winds with a clear head and a responsable attitude. The Mantra "no low turns-no low turns" still rings in my head. I learned braked turns and flat turns and what to do if someone cuts me off. What they did not teach me to do was to be "spectacular" like the guys from team extreme. I was told if I tried to emulate them without putting in the years and required effort to gain their experience I was going to die! They told me and I believe this.
On a personal level I am so tired of people trying to protect everybody from their guns, getting out in the desert and hurting ecosystem or their own system, perceived threat from weapons of mass destruction or creating work safety protocals that are oppresive and counter productive to the work to be done. Finacial constraints on businesses to protect it from practices that were already illegal. That were never needed because we have a system already that was good enough and it was violated by people who know better were trained better and made a personal choice to break the law or do otherwise. I believe we should punish the offenders ( in the world ) not the entire population. Unfurtunatly in skydiving this means self inflicted breakage.

And be advised I'm fully aware I'm in your target demographic of jump numbers to wingloading danger zone. I sought the advice of very experienced people that I respected about my decision and it is up for constant review and feedback. I even listen to people who I don't respect , who I feel don't have a grip on their own canopy capabilities and who offer advise bundled with personal prejudice. And severe lack of skills on this subject regardless of other lofty acomplishments in their skydiving careers.
I'm not aggressive and try to make very responsable decisions about what I do and how it effects my loved ones, the sport and my hiney. But I would feel exactly the same on this issue if I were at a much more conservative loading. I do have a concern that a minimum jump-vs- wingload progression may just move the injuries up the scale to people with more jump numbers if they don't also seek training or additional advise. You may say that they will have experience, but that highly loaded main will be new to them. My rant is over and I apologise to anyone who may feel that I have shared a stern word over this subject that I feel pretty passionate about.



[I have two canopies, a Safire 189 and a VX-60. I can land both of them, but the VX is more spectacular. There is no way to make landing my Safire look better than my VX to spectators, not without injury anyway.

[The current system of peer pressure and advice with the occasional grounding or lecture isn't working. Again, I ask, what cost (what bill)?

Hook


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jun 6, 2003, 5:07 PM
Post #273 of 493 (1522 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
No Derek I am extremely disappointed ( and not just in skydiving ) when we feel we need to enact more rules, more procedure, more costs to a system that is working fine but is being ignored, bypassed or violated by a handful that know they are doing it.

What costs?

The system is not working fine, in my opinion, and others. How can you violate canopy regulation, when there is no formal system in place? The number of injuries is too high.

Quote:
I'm sorry but my FJC and AFF training was good and proper, I got dollar for dollar on its value. So did anyone who went through about the time I did. I'm not saying everybody does everywhere all the time. It was what we needed to be safe under lightly loaded mains in light and variable winds with a clear head and a responsable attitude. The Mantra "no low turns-no low turns" still rings in my head. I learned braked turns and flat turns and what to do if someone cuts me off. What they did not teach me to do was to be "spectacular" like the guys from team extreme. I was told if I tried to emulate them without putting in the years and required effort to gain their experience I was going to die! They told me and I believe this.
On a personal level I am so tired of people trying to protect everybody from their guns, getting out in the desert and hurting ecosystem or their own system, perceived threat from weapons of mass destruction or creating work safety protocals that are oppresive and counter productive to the work to be done. Finacial constraints on businesses to protect it from practices that were already illegal. That were never needed because we have a system already that was good enough and it was violated by people who know better were trained better and made a personal choice to break the law or do otherwise. I believe we should punish the offenders ( in the world ) not the entire population. Unfurtunatly in skydiving this means self inflicted breakage.

I never qusetioned your training, nor your ability. I question the number of people being injured under fully functional canopies. The problem is getting worse not better. I dislike the idea of regulation keeping people safe. I prefer the idea of education keeping people safe. Unfortunately that isn't working.

Quote:
And be advised I'm fully aware I'm in your target demographic of jump numbers to wingloading danger zone. I sought the advice of very experienced people that I respected about my decision and it is up for constant review and feedback. I even listen to people who I don't respect , who I feel don't have a grip on their own canopy capabilities and who offer advise bundled with personal prejudice. And severe lack of skills on this subject regardless of other lofty acomplishments in their skydiving careers.
I'm not aggressive and try to make very responsable decisions about what I do and how it effects my loved ones, the sport and my hiney. But I would feel exactly the same on this issue if I were at a much more conservative loading.

I didn't realize you were in the demographics being targeted. My proposal offers an 'out' for people that desire to downsize faster than normal, with more training/education. Why is this so bad?

Do you not agree that the current system of peer pressure, DZO's and S & TA's is not working?

Do you feel that the current, rising, level of injuries/fatalities is acceptable?

Why, exactly, are you against the idea more canopy training at each license level and wingloading maximums, based on jump numbers, with the option to exceed these maximums on a case-by-case basis?

Are you against minumum pull altitudes based on jump numbers/license held?

Are you against reserve re-pack cycles?

Hook


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jun 6, 2003, 6:51 PM
Post #274 of 493 (1506 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

 
I didn't realize you were in the demographics being targeted. My proposal offers an 'out' for people that desire to downsize faster than normal, with more training/education. Why is this so bad?
__________________________________________________
I was only saying that I act accordingly knowing I'm in the dangerzone, I don't feel targeted but feel I must act responsably given my choices. Glen
__________________________________________________

Do you not agree that the current system of peer pressure, DZO's and S & TA's is not working?
__________________________________________________
I can't speak for other DZs but I think there is a dual mesage being sent, something along the lines of do as I say not as I do. But in the end its up to each individual jumper to do the right thing. Glen
_________________________________________________

Do you feel that the current, rising, level of injuries/fatalities is acceptable?
_________________________________________________
I can't speak for events that I don't have a first hand knowledge of but from three events from harsh to benign. With three jumpers from the same school about the same time same instruction.
1) being a canopy collision at low altitude resulting in death. A recent downsize on a regular sport canopy was implicated as part of the reason,we will never know but a collision is a collision.
2) an honest to goodness low riser turn on a fairly loaded HP canopy with video resulting in broken bones and months of recovery.
3) a loss of alti awareness no flare water displacement landing under a moderately loaded HP canopy resulting in sore ribs.This jumper has known about water alti awareness for over 20 years of flying aircraft, it was covered in water training months prior, it was talked about the day before and moments before this jump it was fresh in his mind. I know this because it was me and until I experienced it I could not impress apon anyone this sensation. I appreciate this as a very valueable lesson learned the easy way.
In a stastistical forum its been said that a partial factor in each of these cases was downsizing too soon for similar jumpers with similar training backgrounds all with under 300 jumps experience. How many of the three of us would this addition to our BSRs have helped. What was the "attitude of the jumpers", All were pretty curent. Were there any other circumstances that played a much greater role than a too small canopy.
My question is Are we dying under small HP's or all kinds of canopys at all kinds of loadings?Glen
_________________________________________________

Why, exactly, are you against the idea more canopy training at each license level and wingloading maximums, based on jump numbers, with the option to exceed these maximums on a case-by-case basis?
_________________________________________________
Because I don't think its the sole reason for ALL these deaths or injuries unless you are only refering to guys trying to swoop and biting it. But I think we are talking about ALL canopy related events instead.Glen
__________________________________________________

Are you against minumum pull altitudes based on jump numbers/license held?
_________________________________________________
No and my personal choice is to pull high for FF and even higher for wingsuit. I don't think that the BSRs changed this. I think jumpers as a collective got smart about this. enforcement had little to do with it, not as much as equiptment changes and newer minds joining the sport and saying that its not for them. Glen
__________________________________________________

Are you against reserve re-pack cycles?
__________________________________________________
No not at all but going on the open advice I'm not opposed to the six month cycle. Here I'm with the flow. But I will tell you I'm way opposed to the you need 100 jumps before you freefly and 200 jumps before you go head down that some other organisations have. I was never opposed to 500 jumps prior to wingsuit flight but am personally glad that with instruction 200 is acceptable . Not everyone agrees here.
I had a discussion with a very experienced person with very many years in the sport about wing suits. And it was equated to snowboards on mostly skiers mountains. In the begining they were only seen as reckless and dangerous. Now its impossable not to crowd them because they have taken over and are now the majority, represent responsable people from all walks. Gone sking lately? Glen


(This post was edited by VectorBoy on Jun 6, 2003, 6:56 PM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jun 6, 2003, 8:56 PM
Post #275 of 493 (1490 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Do you not agree that the current system of peer pressure, DZO's and S & TA's is not working?
__________________________________________________
I can't speak for other DZs but I think there is a dual mesage being sent, something along the lines of do as I say not as I do. But in the end its up to each individual jumper to do the right thing. Glen

So do you think the current system is working?

Dual message? I don't understand. Do mean that because I fly a small canopy that i am being hypocritical by being for some sort of canopy regulations/education?

Quote:
Do you feel that the current, rising, level of injuries/fatalities is acceptable?

Quote:
My question is Are we dying under small HP's or all kinds of canopys at all kinds of loadings?

The numbers seem to indicate that the it is the under 500 jumps, too aggressively downsizing is the greatest catagory of injuries/fatalities.

Quote:
Why, exactly, are you against the idea more canopy training at each license level and wingloading maximums, based on jump numbers, with the option to exceed these maximums on a case-by-case basis?
_________________________________________________
Because I don't think its the sole reason for ALL these deaths or injuries unless you are only refering to guys trying to swoop and biting it. But I think we are talking about ALL canopy related events instead

Canopy regulation, increased training and optional canopy coaching to exceed the wingloading limits will not prevent all landing incidents. It will take a chunk out of them though. No solution will stop all landing incidents. Minimum pull altitudes that are enforced can only stop people from bouncing that intentionally pull low. If they lose altitude awareness and go low, it won't stop them from bouncing.

Quote:
No and my personal choice is to pull high for FF and even higher for wingsuit. I don't think that the BSRs changed this. I think jumpers as a collective got smart about this. enforcement had little to do with it, not as much as equiptment changes and newer minds joining the sport and saying that its not for them.

The trend is not that newer jumpers are getting smarter about their canopy choices, the opposite is true. Sitting back and waiting for the trend to reverse doesn't seem like a good plan.

Quote:
No not at all but going on the open advice I'm not opposed to the six month cycle. Here I'm with the flow.

I am for a 6 month re-pack cycle until any component of the gear is 2 years old, then a 4 month re-pack cycle. We both agree that gear needs to be inspected periodically.

Quote:
But I will tell you I'm way opposed to the you need 100 jumps before you freefly and 200 jumps before you go head down that some other organisations have. I was never opposed to 500 jumps prior to wingsuit flight but am personally glad that with instruction 200 is acceptable . Not everyone agrees here.

This regulation is similar to what is being proposed. 500 jumps before flying a wingsuit, waiverable to 200 with instruction, that is very similar to what is being proposed. I haven't seen the free-flying restrictions before.

Quote:
I had a discussion with a very experienced person with very many years in the sport about wing suits. And it was equated to snowboards on mostly skiers mountains. In the begining they were only seen as reckless and dangerous. Now its impossable not to crowd them because they have taken over and are now the majority, represent responsable people from all walks. Gone sking lately?

I am confused how this fits in, but I have have been snowboarding lately. It was a great time.

No solution is perfect or will stop all alnding incidents and fatalities. But what we have now is falling short. I have yet to hear a good argument against my wingloading regulation, waiverable if additional instruction is recieved (to a point), and more canopy skills requirements for each license proposal.

Hook


rhino  (D 22500)

Jun 6, 2003, 11:55 PM
Post #276 of 493 (1492 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
3) a loss of alti awareness no flare water displacement landing under a moderately loaded HP canopy resulting in sore ribs.This jumper has known about water alti awareness for over 20 years of flying aircraft, it was covered in water training months prior,

This is all fine and dandy.. The fact remains that you have to have your head on your shoulders swooping.. All 10 seconds or so of that swoop you have to be ZONED. All it takes is someone spacing out for a fraction of a second. Letting their guard down for a fraction of a second and you get hurt swooping.

That challenge is something that I get pleasure from. I simply MUST maintain focus.

I've seen people lose it for a fraction of a second and WHAM!! No flare? Or they damn near fly into someone.

Sure I watched hook swoop and I WANTED TO BE LIKE HOOK. No doubt about it I wanted to learn to do that. Crowd pleasing is secondary. SPEED AND FLIGHT is primary. There was never any peer pressure. Sometimes I wonder what in the hell you people are talking about. I downsized because I LIKE THE PERFORMANCE difference!! Not because Derek flies a vx60 and I want to be like Derek.

Ultimately IT IS THE PILOT'S RESPONSABILITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not the DZO's, not the USPA..

For Gods sake.. If someone gets under a smaller canopy they assume the risks involved. That is part of the enjoyment of the whole sport. If you want to be safe play golf.

High performance canopy flight is growing. More people are skydiving. The law of averages is clear. Accidents happen.

It is MY job to make sure I can fly my canopy.

It is MY job to do my homework.

It is MY job to insure others safety around me while flying my canopy.

It is MY job to stay away from people I feel are unsafe under canopy..

It is MY job. No one elses...

k, I'm done..

Rhino


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jun 7, 2003, 2:21 AM
Post #277 of 493 (1489 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

[Dual message? I don't understand. Do mean that because I fly a small canopy that i am being hypocritical by being for some sort of canopy regulations/education?
The fact remains ( my view is its not what I think but what do you think) you load at 3:1 , not for experiments with data loggers, not as a factory test pilot , but in your daily rig and at an impressive landing density altitude( at your home DZ ) that I will tell you I can't even breath at let alone really perform at. And everybody on a factory team doesn't load that high. And before we get off on the wrong foot I will never be part of a group that tells you how to load and fly( just asking you to review self and the message it sends out), at my current jump numbers or ever. I will never say we need to stop the needless base deaths that happen every year or the countless deaths of 19 year olds on ultra high performance motorcycles.......Ever. I will never judge the way you fly or your choices and if you are kicking ass i will ask you for help and advice to be sure. I will fight right along side of you if some organisation says " derek you just can't do what you've been doing anymore". And I'm not saying that you propose these particular changes into an ISP or BSR. No.... someone else might.

Quote:
Do you feel that the current, rising, level of injuries/fatalities is acceptable?

If I have had the opportunity to know the true reason for the the deaths, whether it was equiptment related or lack of training related, attitude related, recreational drug use related. I could give you a gods honest answer. As I see it published in the uspa magazine ( only 3rd gen info ) I can't tell you. Half the time wing loading ( your champion issue BTW) isn't reported or for lack of a better word planform factor. Sometimes we get a hint of previous aggressive behavior but thats rare. If I was on the accident investigation board of the USPA, and I don't for one second believe one exists beyond local DZOs s&ta and an on scene rigger and coroners, I would have a hard time telling you what the primary preventable situation resulting in death was. If the person recently down sized or was on an HP before their time its easy to find the blame. Now if they try to be like their heroes and are swooping with low experience then its obvious. But I'm not convinced every example was a swoop gone bad. A young and very loved person perished at eloy recently nobody can tell us went wrong its kind of the nebulous factor no downsizing or hp canopy or that off brand canopy that collapses when you least expect it to blame. It just happened I'm sure if it was me or a select few of my peers it would be very easy to say it was those assholes, on their hps, before their time. quote unqoute. and you know it.

Quote:
Why, exactly, are you against the idea more canopy training at each license level and wingloading maximums, based on jump numbers, with the option to exceed these maximums on a case-by-case basis?
Let me say now I'm not against training or coaching of any kind. If we could do this and keep the same old routine and expense I would be for it all the way. But if you are asking the governing body to place restrictions and conduct overt policing, when I believe they have their hands full at the federal and state level fighting and dealing with angry municipal airport bureaucracies and other monumental forces that don't care about what we do and could care less about our desire to hurl ourselves out of airplanes. And would be happy If we shut down, heck we are all crazy anyway right. Its my view thats their main job, we have to worry about us. There is a big difference in cultures in dropzones across the US. What is exceptable and what is not. Currently there is no solution as it is.
_________________________________________________
The trend is not that newer jumpers are getting smarter about their canopy choices, the opposite is true. Sitting back and waiting for the trend to reverse doesn't seem like a good plan.
________________________________________________-
Really I haven't seen a good low alti toggle hook in over two years. You don't think there is a smartening of the masses? Only speaking for My DZ now, don't know what you are seeing out there.


I haven't seen the free-flying restrictions before.
__________________________________________________
Talk to the many overseas visitors and see what their organization mandates in terms of FF. Lets not get closer to frances style of controling Le swoop.


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jun 7, 2003, 2:37 AM
Post #278 of 493 (1486 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
3) a loss of alti awareness no flare water displacement landing under a moderately loaded HP canopy resulting in sore ribs.This jumper has known about water alti awareness for over 20 years of flying aircraft, it was covered in water training months prior,

This is all fine and dandy.. The fact remains that you have to have your head on your shoulders swooping..
________________________________________________
Awe and I was waiting for this, see you assume I was swooping, and I was not. Simply an accuracy type landing at the Apex of the pond. I could not convince my friends I wasn't swooping, I didn't even try to convince the DZO I wasn't swooping. I don't swoop on land and I didn't then. Had this been a reportable incident... it would have been a low time pilot on a heavily loaded HP... who should not have been swooping! Quite a bit different, in my view. It's easy to blame the plane form or the wing loading when it's even a small fraction of the cause. Outside of that jump, I have suffered more pain and strain in the packing area closing my rig, not a bruise - not a scratch, than in two hundred jumps on the same canopy.


(This post was edited by VectorBoy on Jun 7, 2003, 2:44 AM)


Designer  (D 5771)

Jun 7, 2003, 10:30 AM
Post #279 of 493 (1469 views)
Shortcut
Re: [towerrat] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Are wing loading police a good Idea?Humm,a tough question for sure.Busting people(low timers) is worse than busting an instructor,jumpmaster,experienced jumper for giving bad(misleading) info.Hey,most of us have taken chances with what we know,think we know and have experienced.Just suggesting that a person might not be ready for what they can afford can get you laughed at.I have real problems when it comes to this.You educate the best you can.If they don,t ask(it,s their funeral)


rhino  (D 22500)

Jun 7, 2003, 4:11 PM
Post #280 of 493 (1455 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Designer] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Are wing loading police a good Idea?

If you "anyone" wants to jump a higher loaded canopy that is your "their" choice.

Anyone can give canopy advice.

It is ultimately up to YOU to decide who you take it from. So.. If you are a jumper that hasn't done your homework and you get a highly loaded canopy you might want to choose WISELY who you get your schooling from. Don't pick the DZ disaster waiting to happen. Find someone that can fly.

Swooping "or flying highly loaded canopies" is risk/reward thing. Most are willing to risk their ass for the reward of that type of flight.

Like hook said.. Hope your bag of skill fills up before your bag of luck runs out.

Rhino


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jul 7, 2010, 7:19 AM
Post #281 of 493 (1053 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

It's been seven years since this thread was started. Still no BSR to help keep noobs off canopies they don't have the skill to handle. Lots more injured and dead guys who thought they had mad skillz though - and most of them could have avoided the pain if something had been done seven years ago, since most of them hadn't even seen a parachute back then.

Will we ever learn? Nope.


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Jul 7, 2010, 7:40 AM
Post #282 of 493 (1035 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

At least you got the USPA to institute a Canopy Progression card (that almost no one uses).

Get a group together and stand in front of the USPA BOD so they can look you in the eye when they say "no."


dragon2  (D 101989)

Jul 7, 2010, 7:43 AM
Post #283 of 493 (1035 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

I must say, ever since we have our canopy rules (since 2003), incidents involving non-students and non-swoopers have seem to gone down markedly.
Complaints are still there, from girls "stuck" on 150/135 sqft canopies for a while (which is a GOOD thing IMO, and a lot of the complaints seem to be from BFs and the like...), and the inevitable mad skillz guys. Some mad skillz guys try to jump a non-approved canopy anyway (i.e. 50 jumps 200+ lbs bodyweight jumper got himself a stiletto 170, 3 jumps until he got caught out) and they have the option to go jump in Belgium if they want where they can get away with their canopy choice more often, or they conform and jump a sabre2 150 until 400 jumps, big deal...
Also the canopy market seems stabilised again now, that took a while. Some stuff is still very hard to sell here...

Anyway, while of course you can still get hurt jumping a "sensible" canopy, incidents seem to have gone down here in the "intermediate" range, and I think also in the more advanced >700 jump range but don't have the statistics to prove that.


stayhigh  (F 111)

Jul 7, 2010, 8:04 AM
Post #284 of 493 (1009 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Grown ass man or woman should be able to determine what they want to fly.
If they wanna hook in, it should be their choice.

If you are so saftey conscious than you should never skydive.

and honestly any type of speed induced landing could be your last one, even at 1.1 wingloading.

so now what? do we limit what kind of turn they should do at certain jump number???
till 100 jump straight in
200 double front
300 45 degree double front
400 90 degree double front.
and so forth???

and who makes that decision??? some old dude in USPA chair who can't even go across the pond, and thinking, hmmmmmmm, "I" had trouble doing this at this jump number so "THEY" shouldn't do that???


with so many regulation makes me wanna go base.


(This post was edited by stayhigh on Jul 7, 2010, 8:13 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Jul 7, 2010, 8:56 AM
Post #285 of 493 (987 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It's been seven years since this thread was started. Still no BSR to help keep noobs off canopies they don't have the skill to handle. .

How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test?


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jul 7, 2010, 9:06 AM
Post #286 of 493 (979 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test?

No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands. Which appear to be having the intended effect -

Quote:
I must say, ever since we have our canopy rules (since 2003), incidents involving non-students and non-swoopers have seem to gone down markedly.

Is it perfect? No. Does it limit some jumpers "freedom"? Yes - until they get some experience under their belt, that is. Will it reduce injuries? Yes. Will it make it easier for a DZO/DZM/S&TA to tell someone they can't jump that canopy? Yes. Will it make it easier for gear dealers and private sellers to tell someone they can't buy that canopy? Yes. Will I have to check the manifest to see if "that guy" is on it before I get on that load? Probably not.

Will it happen? No. Even if someone presents it to the BOD. For, as I was told in a PM, it's already been decreed high up in USPA that it will never happen.


DocPop  (C License)

Jul 7, 2010, 9:07 AM
Post #287 of 493 (975 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
It's been seven years since this thread was started. Still no BSR to help keep noobs off canopies they don't have the skill to handle. .

How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test?

I think that would be an excellent idea. Some kind of checklist involving the kind of canopy drills taught on canopy courses could be required for B, C and D licenses.

With the current USPA system it is quite possible to never have any canopy advice or coaching after the A-license card is completed.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Jul 7, 2010, 9:28 AM
Post #288 of 493 (955 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test?

No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands. Which appear to be having the intended effect -

Quote:
I must say, ever since we have our canopy rules (since 2003), incidents involving non-students and non-swoopers have seem to gone down markedly.

Is it perfect? No. Does it limit some jumpers "freedom"? Yes - until they get some experience under their belt, that is. Will it reduce injuries? Yes. Will it make it easier for a DZO/DZM/S&TA to tell someone they can't jump that canopy? Yes. Will it make it easier for gear dealers and private sellers to tell someone they can't buy that canopy? Yes. Will I have to check the manifest to see if "that guy" is on it before I get on that load? Probably not.

Will it happen? No. Even if someone presents it to the BOD. For, as I was told in a PM, it's already been decreed high up in USPA that it will never happen.

In the Netherlands, is it actual LAW?

In the USA, it will not be.

This month's Parachutist magazine mentioned that one dz dropped group membership because they didn't want to provide their maintenance logs. Maintenance logs are law. Why not provide them? Simple. They didn't want to.

Forcing dropzones to enforce more rules is not the solution, since they can easily opt out of USPA.

I suppose USPA could try to say that member are not allowed to jump at any but USPA member dropzones. That would not fly. There would be lawsuits regarding illegal anti-competitive practices. You thought the Skyride suit was bad? Just wait for this one. Besides, the members would just quit and jump elsewhere.

Being more forceful is not the solution.

As someone said, maybe on this thread, or maybe on the American Boogie accident thread, we are instructors and advisors, not policemen. We can teach skills, but we cannot teach of enforce common sense.

We reap what we sow. We have made skydiving look so easy and accessible that we are attracting people who don't have the common sense to conduct themselves with reasonable precautions for their own safety.

I don't have a suggestion/solution, but more regulation won't fix it, since we can easily opt out of the regulatory body.


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

Jul 7, 2010, 9:32 AM
Post #289 of 493 (947 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

The one problem with a checklist is that once you've managed to check off the items, you're "good to go." Well, it's consistency and judgment that makes one a good pilot, and not the ability to do front riser turns 5 times in a row.

Personally, I don't have a lot of problem with risk-taking. We are skydiving, after all. However, I'm sick of people:
getting broken up
casting our sport in a bad light for spectators, students, and people who read the newspaper
endangering spectators and other jumpers (yes, they do sometimes)
costing tax dollars when they turn out to be uninsured or underinsured

and everyone else sanctimoniously defending their decisions as "impacting them alone." Bullshit. All of the above results are impacts on other jumpers and the public at large.

Experienced jumpers get hurt and die too. Sometimes doing stupid shit. But the disciplined swoop students seem not to get hurt as often as the guys who are just "bad-ass" and "quick learners." And even after they all become experienced, it seems to be the same.

Wendy P.


DocPop  (C License)

Jul 7, 2010, 9:41 AM
Post #290 of 493 (937 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The one problem with a checklist is that once you've managed to check off the items, you're "good to go."

I completely agree, but I think having to check off the items for B, C and D-licenses adds some more repetition to the process. I realize my proposal is far from a perfect solution, but a step in the right direction? I think so.

We have to strike a balance between the right amount of coaching/education and the individual's freedom of choice. That is not going to be easy and there will always be people who complain about the current situation, just as there are those who complain about all change.

I believe that the efficacy of the Dutch system is limited in that it only takes into account jump numbers (as I understand it) and there is a lot more than that to determining whether someone is under the correct wing. My proposal is that a pilot should have to demonstrate some level of skill under canopy at several points during their skydiving career, rather than just at <25 jumps then they are "good to go".


kallend  (D 23151)

Jul 7, 2010, 10:02 AM
Post #291 of 493 (924 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test?

No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands.

So you didn't really mean "skill", did you? A complete klutz could be approved provided she had made enough jumps.


Bolas  (D License)

Jul 7, 2010, 10:35 AM
Post #292 of 493 (885 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Additonally if the USPA created a BSR limiting wingloading, they would open themselves, the DZs, and the manufacturers up to lawsuits from anyone being hurt or killed under "safe" canopies.


mswallin13  (C 37899)

Jul 7, 2010, 10:46 AM
Post #293 of 493 (871 views)
Shortcut
Re: Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Just as a philosophical question for the group...

Why would USPA be concerned about the liability associated with a wing-loading BSR, but not be concerned about liability associated with creating a wingsuit BSR? Doesn't the same logic apply to a potential lawsuit if someone with 200 jumps within 18 months (or 500 total jumps) goes in on a wingsuit?

I'm not advocating a position either way as to the right way to handle the issue, just trying to understand the rationale.


(This post was edited by mswallin13 on Jul 7, 2010, 10:47 AM)


dragon2  (D 101989)

Jul 7, 2010, 11:04 AM
Post #294 of 493 (852 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test?

No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands.

So you didn't really mean "skill", did you? A complete klutz could be approved provided she had made enough jumps.

Yes, we still have klutzes (almost, Lutzes). And we have occasionally had klutzes end up on life support with an "approved canopy", after multiple talkings-to. This will still happen when an instructor will not GROUND a complete klutz.

When the canopy rules were first introduced we also had a few people going from a spectre/sabre 1 150 straight to a vengeance/katana 120, because the jump number (500) said they could. The rules are not a substitude for common sense Crazy After adding a new category for 400-700 jumps, a 135 sqft max on stiletto-type canopies, this problem mostly went away.

Our canopy rules give you the max canopy you CAN jump, not the max canopy you HAVE to jump... And instructors should still be good for something Tongue


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Jul 7, 2010, 11:16 AM
Post #295 of 493 (837 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mswallin13] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Just as a philosophical question for the group...

Why would USPA be concerned about the liability associated with a wing-loading BSR, but not be concerned about liability associated with creating a wingsuit BSR? Doesn't the same logic apply to a potential lawsuit if someone with 200 jumps within 18 months (or 500 total jumps) goes in on a wingsuit?

I'm not advocating a position either way as to the right way to handle the issue, just trying to understand the rationale.

I don't think that the liability issue is as big a problem as Bolas might think it is.

My worry is membership, individual and/or group, alienation.

If the individual members don't like the rules that are adopted, eventually they will stop being members.

Since Group Membership requires that all jumpers at the Group Member dz are members, and since dropzones are businesses, if individual members start abandoning USPA, so will some Group Members.

When other Group Members who remain see they are losing business by remaining Group Members, they will quit too.

So, as I see it, over-regulation could conceivably destroy USPA.


fcajump  (D 15598)

Jul 7, 2010, 11:26 AM
Post #296 of 493 (823 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't have a lot of problem with risk-taking. We are skydiving, after all. However, I'm sick of people: getting broken up
casting our sport in a bad light for spectators, students, and people who read the newspaper
endangering spectators and other jumpers (yes, they do sometimes)
costing tax dollars when they turn out to be uninsured or underinsured
+1

In reply to:
defending their decisions as "impacting them alone." Bullshit. All of the above results are impacts on other jumpers and the public at large.
++1

Even when you are careful enough to ensure no danger to spectators or other jumpers, your "impact" damages my sport, your friends/family.

I'm not saying your CANT do what you want, I'm asking that we do what we've done with instruction at all other levels. Hell, there were rules on how many jumps you had to have prior to jumping a ram-air at all... until the gear improved and our methods of instructing caught up with the speed of the 'chutes. And that was spurred on by folks tired of seeing their friends injured/killed because they could not safely land their new "high-performance" open/flying canopies. Why should this be any different??

JW


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 7, 2010, 11:28 AM
Post #297 of 493 (820 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bolas] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>Additonally if the USPA created a BSR limiting wingloading, they would open
>themselves, the DZs, and the manufacturers up to lawsuits from anyone
>being hurt or killed under "safe" canopies.

This has been the argument against many BSR's. "If you set a minimum opening altitude, and someone opens into someone else at 3000 feet because of the BSR, USPA could be SUED!"

That hasn't happened; I think it's something of a chimera. In most fields, new rules/guidelines/procedures that reduce the number of serious or fatal accidents is always preferable to increased incidents or fatalities. By far, the #1 way to reduce the threat of lawsuits from injury or death is to reduce the number of injuries or deaths.


Bolas  (D License)

Jul 7, 2010, 11:30 AM
Post #298 of 493 (820 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mswallin13] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Just as a philosophical question for the group...

Why would USPA be concerned about the liability associated with a wing-loading BSR, but not be concerned about liability associated with creating a wingsuit BSR? Doesn't the same logic apply to a potential lawsuit if someone with 200 jumps within 18 months (or 500 total jumps) goes in on a wingsuit?

I'm not advocating a position either way as to the right way to handle the issue, just trying to understand the rationale.

In simplest terms, you have to have a canopy to skydive, you do not have to have a wingsuit which makes it far easier to restrict and enforce.

The issue addressed in the BSR is less flying a wingsuit than not properly rigging one and falling out.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jul 7, 2010, 11:32 AM
Post #299 of 493 (813 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test?

No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands.

So you didn't really mean "skill", did you? A complete klutz could be approved provided she had made enough jumps.

Yes, we still have klutzes (almost, Lutzes). And we have occasionally had klutzes end up on life support with an "approved canopy", after multiple talkings-to. This will still happen when an instructor will not GROUND a complete klutz.

When the canopy rules were first introduced we also had a few people going from a spectre/sabre 1 150 straight to a vengeance/katana 120, because the jump number (500) said they could. The rules are not a substitude for common sense. After adding a new category for 400-700 jumps, a 135 sqft max on stiletto-type canopies, this problem mostly went away.

Our canopy rules give you the max canopy you CAN jump, not the max canopy you HAVE to jump... And instructors should still be good for something Tongue

So your rules rely on common sense and instructor intervention. But if people use common sense and instructors intervene, what is the need for the rules? There's a paradox.


dragon2  (D 101989)

Jul 7, 2010, 11:44 AM
Post #300 of 493 (801 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So your rules rely on common sense and instructor intervention. But if people use common sense and instructors intervene, what is the need for the rules? There's a paradox.

There is, but apparently common sense seems to fail a lot where canopy choice is concerned. Or wingsuiting. Or camera jumping. Or using large amounts of lead with swooping. Or pulling as low as you want.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jul 7, 2010, 12:11 PM
Post #301 of 493 (1238 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
So your rules rely on common sense and instructor intervention. But if people use common sense and instructors intervene, what is the need for the rules? There's a paradox.

There is, but apparently common sense seems to fail a lot where canopy choice is concerned. Or wingsuiting. Or camera jumping. Or using large amounts of lead with swooping. Or pulling as low as you want.
\

And suddenly common sense and instructor intervention return when someone has X00 jumps?


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jul 7, 2010, 12:52 PM
Post #302 of 493 (1220 views)
Shortcut
Re: Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
A complete klutz could be approved provided she had made enough jumps.

Yes. But unlike right now, she'd have to have actually made some jumps before she'd be able to downsize.

Right now, anybody, klutz or "natural talent", with any number of jumps can buy anything they want.

Which is an overall better outcome? Letting anyone buy anything, so there are more klutzs sharing the sky with you? Or limiting what low jump number klutzs can buy so there are fewer klutzs sharing the sky with you?

In reply to:
I don't have a suggestion/solution, but more regulation won't fix it, since we can easily opt out of the regulatory body.

We can't opt out of the FAA. One mad mother with connections pointing out to the right legislator that the organization tasked with self-policing the sport has chosen not to police what is a major source of injury and death within the sport could easily change who is doing the regulating.


diablopilot  (D License)

Jul 7, 2010, 1:33 PM
Post #303 of 493 (1207 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Count me in this time. Who says an old dog can't learn new tricks?


diablopilot  (D License)

Jul 7, 2010, 1:38 PM
Post #304 of 493 (1202 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bolas] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Additonally if the USPA created a BSR limiting wingloading, they would open themselves, the DZs, and the manufacturers up to lawsuits from anyone being hurt or killed under "safe" canopies.

You mean like they did when the instituted the USPA Tandem Instructor rating? And have failed to enforce a standard high enough to give the manufacturers cause to discontinue their ratings as originally planned?

Ooops.

You mean like the have with the wingsuit BSR?

Or with minimum pull altitudes?


Bolas  (D License)

Jul 7, 2010, 1:52 PM
Post #305 of 493 (1192 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
We can't opt out of the FAA. One mad mother with connections pointing out to the right legislator that the organization tasked with self-policing the sport has chosen not to police what is a major source of injury and death within the sport could easily change who is doing the regulating.

The FAA doesn't give a damn about us as long as we're only hurting and killing our own. Neither does the general public so it's not good political fodder. As far as most are concerned it's simply "Darwin at work."

Were we to start injuring and killing a high number of spectators, that might change things.

While the urge to "do something" is generally highest after an incident, it's also about the worst time as it's mostly emotions based.


dragon2  (D 101989)

Jul 7, 2010, 1:52 PM
Post #306 of 493 (1189 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
So your rules rely on common sense and instructor intervention. But if people use common sense and instructors intervene, what is the need for the rules? There's a paradox.

There is, but apparently common sense seems to fail a lot where canopy choice is concerned. Or wingsuiting. Or camera jumping. Or using large amounts of lead with swooping. Or pulling as low as you want.
\

And suddenly common sense and instructor intervention return when someone has X00 jumps?

Seems so. We don't see as many landing-related incidents in the 1000+ jumps range as we do (way) below that, do we? Aside from swooping, which is an extra risk a jumper can choose to take.

I think if you stay in the sport for 1000+ jumps you did something right, you have probably seen more "stuff" than you wanted to and you have the experience to decide what you want to jump, yourself. You've passed the most dangerous phase in skydiving, IMO.

I'm not a big fan of a large number of rules myself, but our canopy rules are just about the path I took (I was 25 jumps faster or so) so they didn't bother me that much, aside from the reserve thing: nothing is mentioned about reserve wingloadings, and I was allowed to jump a PD113 as a reserve just fine @150lbs, but not as a demo-main Crazy Oh well, no rule is perfect Tongue


AndyMan  (D 25698)

Jul 7, 2010, 2:11 PM
Post #307 of 493 (1176 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

It's absolutely amazing to me that the USPA has completely failed to act on this. It represents an abject failure to look out for the best interests of the sport, and the association.


_Am


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 7, 2010, 2:46 PM
Post #308 of 493 (1156 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AndyMan] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

>It represents an abject failure to look out for the best interests of the
>sport, and the association.

Given the strong opposition to any such regulation, I don't think it indicates that at all. Indeed, if one day we woke up and USPA said "no jumper under 500 jumps can jump anything smaller than a 120" I think people would (rightly) be annoyed.

It's worth discussing. But the solution is neither simple nor obvious.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jul 7, 2010, 4:45 PM
Post #309 of 493 (1120 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
So your rules rely on common sense and instructor intervention. But if people use common sense and instructors intervene, what is the need for the rules? There's a paradox.

There is, but apparently common sense seems to fail a lot where canopy choice is concerned. Or wingsuiting. Or camera jumping. Or using large amounts of lead with swooping. Or pulling as low as you want.
\

And suddenly common sense and instructor intervention return when someone has X00 jumps?

Seems so. We don't see as many landing-related incidents in the 1000+ jumps range as we do (way) below that, do we? Aside from swooping, which is an extra risk a jumper can choose to take.

Who kept count? Where are the data?

I hear that claim every time this comes up, but no-one ever seems to have the data to confirm it.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jul 7, 2010, 5:15 PM
Post #310 of 493 (1111 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Given the strong opposition to any such regulation, I don't think it indicates that at all. Indeed, if one day we woke up and USPA said "no jumper under 500 jumps can jump anything smaller than a 120" I think people would (rightly) be annoyed.

The opposition, at least here, seems to either just be playing devils advocate or is playing the 'personal freedom' card, and neither of them is acknowledging the fact that this type of regulation has been implemented, with success, in other countries. Unlike many of the issues debated here, this one does indeed have real-world proof that it is effective in reducing the number of open canopy incidents.

The opposition in the USPA, well that's anyones guess. I'm not sure how follwing a proven method to reduce the number of open canopy incidents, the biggest catagory among US fatalities, is helping anyone, but I'm sure the BOD has their reasons (however stupid or self-serving they may be).

In terms of people being annoyed, I'm annoyed by the security at my local commercial airport. I flew for years without taking off my shoes for anyone, but now that's not the case. Things have changed. Things will always change.

The reality is, only a small group of people for a short period of time will be 'annoyed' by the existance of such a BSR, those being the people with between 50 and 500 jumps at the time the BSR is implemented.

Seven years since this thread was started. IN seven years, an entire generation of jumpers has come and gone. There's a 'goodbye to skydiving' thread in the bonfire from a guy with 5 years in the sport. He began jumping, had a blast, was on the wingsuit world record, and quit jumping all within the last 5 years, That's a guy who would have begun and ended jumping with a WL BSR simply being a part of the skydiving landscape. He wouldn't know what life was like without such a BSR.

How many AFF I's and TI's have less than seven years in the sport? 100's I would guess, and every one of them would be teaching and mentoring with a WL BSR as being just another part of skydiving as they wouldn't know skydiving without it.

We can add to those people, all of the jumpers with less than 7 years in the sport who would have learned that WL and canopy control are important enough to be 'on the books', and that fudging the rules can get you busted by the S&TA or the DZO.

Just for kicks, let's consider the group most likely to be 'annoyed' by a WL BSR, those jumpers with 50 to 500 jumps at the time the BSR is implemented, and let's wonder how many of them are still in the sport? Half? A little less? A little more?

I seem to recall a study, or poll, or something a few years back calling 5 or 6 years the 'average' time spent in the sport. So you take all of those 'effected parties', and figure they all would have already had 1 to 3 years in at the time the BSR was implemented, the bulk of the 'effected parties' aren't even jumping anymore.

The whole thing would just be a speed bump in the road of skydiving. Within 3 years of implementing such a BSR anyone negatively effected by the BSR would be far enough along that the BSR doesn't apply to them, and everyone who started jumping within that 3 years would just think it's business as usual.

It's a proven way to reduce open canopy incidents, and represents almost zero cost to anyone, be it the individual jumper or the USPA, to implement. Where's the downside?


DocPop  (C License)

Jul 7, 2010, 5:16 PM
Post #311 of 493 (1112 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Who kept count? Where are the data?

I hear that claim every time this comes up, but no-one ever seems to have the data to confirm it.

I looked at the records for low turns/impacts with the ground in the US on sport rigs and went back the last 20 incidents. I only included fatalities where both jump numbers and canopy size were recorded.

Here are the facts:

Mean # jumps - 1,823 (15-7,000)
Mean canopy size - 129 (84-280)
Incidents with >1,000 jumps - 60%
Incidents with <1,000 jumps - 40%

Now we have some numbers to discuss.


diablopilot  (D License)

Jul 7, 2010, 5:19 PM
Post #312 of 493 (1111 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bolas] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The FAA doesn't give a damn about us as long as we're only hurting and killing our own. Neither does the general public so it's not good political fodder. As far as most are concerned it's simply "Darwin at work."

Not true. We're on the FAA's radar any time some blatant FAR violation circulates around YouTube enough for a staffer to notice. Then Randy O. at USPA HQ hears about it.

Examples: Wingsuits through and around clouds, and they really got excited when they saw them swooping tandems.

Aircraft exceeding limitations on descent.

Tandem Demos into Stadiums.

Helicopter jumps with BASE equipment.

Once we become noticed enough, you can expect the hammer to come down.


AndyMan  (D 25698)

Jul 7, 2010, 7:41 PM
Post #313 of 493 (1087 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Given the strong opposition to any such regulation, I don't think it indicates that at all. Indeed, if one day we woke up and USPA said "no jumper under 500 jumps can jump anything smaller than a 120" I think people would (rightly) be annoyed.

I disagree. I don't see strong opposition at all, except among a few libertarian types, plus a few others who would be affected. This type of opposition did not halt any of the other BSR's, so I see no reason why it should halt this one. Certainly opinions should be listened to, but a vocal minority should not stop progressive change.

I'm sure the USPA has enough smart people to come up with a reasonable limit that's far more comprehensive than an arbitrary cutoff. Brian Germain's chart is a great starting point.

_Am


mnealtx  (B 30496)

Jul 7, 2010, 8:42 PM
Post #314 of 493 (1072 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
It's been seven years since this thread was started. Still no BSR to help keep noobs off canopies they don't have the skill to handle. .

How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test?

Bill's checklist in the safety section would be a good start.

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 and front riser turn to landing
land on slight uphills and downhills
land with rear risers


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Jul 7, 2010, 11:11 PM
Post #315 of 493 (1047 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bolas] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

The issue addressed in the BSR is less flying a wingsuit than not properly rigging one and falling out.

As the person who proposed and argued for the wingsuit BSR, this is not accurate.
Because a ingsuit manufacturer was steadfastly against a USPA Wingsuit Instructor (or Advanced Coach) Rating, the next logical step was to propose the BSR.
I would gratefully, gladly see the BSR rescinded in favor of a Wingsuit Instructor (or advanced Coach) rating implemented from USPA. Hopefully the additons to the SIM are a step in that direction.
I'd equally love to see a Canopy Instructor/Coach rating from USPA, and some form of progression monitoring system for S&TA's, DZO's, or license advancements that preclude/reduce pencil-whipping licenses and promote more intelligent downsizing considerations and progressions.

From my perspective, intelligent and well-developed educational programs and promotion of those programs are more effective than rules/BSR's.

If we had more of a USPA statement on canopy safety, camera safety, etc (vs the pablum we occasionally see out there) I suspect we could make strong steps towards a better informed culture.


Bolas  (D License)

Jul 7, 2010, 11:30 PM
Post #316 of 493 (1047 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Wingload BSR. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

The issue addressed in the BSR is less flying a wingsuit than not properly rigging one and falling out.

As the person who proposed and argued for the wingsuit BSR, this is not accurate.
Because a ingsuit manufacturer was steadfastly against a USPA Wingsuit Instructor (or Advanced Coach) Rating, the next logical step was to propose the BSR.
I would gratefully, gladly see the BSR rescinded in favor of a Wingsuit Instructor (or advanced Coach) rating implemented from USPA. Hopefully the additons to the SIM are a step in that direction.
I'd equally love to see a Canopy Instructor/Coach rating from USPA, and some form of progression monitoring system for S&TA's, DZO's, or license advancements that preclude/reduce pencil-whipping licenses and promote more intelligent downsizing considerations and progressions.

From my perspective, intelligent and well-developed educational programs and promotion of those programs are more effective than rules/BSR's.

If we had more of a USPA statement on canopy safety, camera safety, etc (vs the pablum we occasionally see out there) I suspect we could make strong steps towards a better informed culture.

Not arguing your reasons as I agree with them, just disagree with you on why it got p