Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Wingload BSR

 


Poll: Wingload BSR
We should have a BSR limiting Wingload to jump numbers with an option to test out to a higher wingload and Education. 91 / 40%
We should not do anything...there is not a problem, or people should be free do do as they please. 9 / 4%
Education with out regulaton. 130 / 57%
230 total votes
 
Ron

Jun 10, 2003, 12:01 PM
Post #1 of 289 (4946 views)
Shortcut
Wingload BSR Can't Post

Well I know my answer.

Whats yours?
Please include

Wingload and # of jumps.

Me 1.8WL 2,900 jumps


(This post was edited by Ron on Jun 10, 2003, 12:01 PM)


rigging65  (D 21921)

Jun 10, 2003, 12:23 PM
Post #2 of 289 (4867 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm all for some sort of jump number/wingload requiremnets, with the necessary option of being able to test out early. If you think you're hot shit, prove it. Not just once - but on a few jumps, over a few days.

WL @ 2.1, 1000+ jumps
AFF/I, CCD, Master Rigger


CanuckInUSA  (D 26396)

Jun 10, 2003, 12:28 PM
Post #3 of 289 (4851 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I voted for the "Education without Regulation" choice. I've had several conversations with DJan Stewart concerning this whole topic and we both agree that the:

<100 jumps 1.0 wing loading
<200 jumps 1.1 wing loading
<300 jumps 1.2 wing loading
<400 jumps 1.3 wing loading
<500 jumps 1.4 wing loading

is a good guideline to follow. But we both thought that regulation was not the answer and that education is. Obviously education does not occur every where so improvements need to be made. But things are looking up in terms of canopy education here in CO. The Colorado Canopy Pilots Association was recently formed (a group of experienced canopy pilots who will hold seminars once a month at the different DZs in the state) and while I'm not sure if Hooknswoop will be part of the CCPA, he also holds canopy control seminars every once in a while (which I have attended and was very happy with the instruction).

To date I've got 261 jumps on a wing loaded at about 1.4 on a Sabre2 170 which obviously violates the recommended wing loadings. But I am very current (I've jumped at least once every weekend since January), I stand up 99% of my landings and as long as I don't do anything stupid with my front riser 90 and 180 degree hook turns which I am still learning (I've only found myself in the corner once and I didn't like being there), I should be ok. Plus I'm not planning on downsizing anytime soon (I'm on my Sabre2 until the fall at the very least and that should be another 100+ jumps which should give me over 200 jumps on the same canopy and over 300 jumps on a Sabre2 before I even think about downsizing).

Of course I could always screw up on my next jump and then people will be slamming me like they like slamming some of the other injured jumpers who have made poor judgments in the air. Angelic


TALONSKY  (D License)

Jun 10, 2003, 12:37 PM
Post #4 of 289 (4834 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Wing loading 1.85
number of jumps: 580

Kirk


aufreefly  (A 35174)

Jun 10, 2003, 12:37 PM
Post #5 of 289 (4834 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that we should impose some kind of limit on wing-loading with the option to test out. I realize that it would not be very popular at first, as some people would have to re-evaluate their current wing loading. But anyone starting after the rules were enacted would just see it as another part of skydiving. I think that it should be left up to the DZ's. Everyone who jumps a high wingloading at a low number of jumps should have to put their money where their mouth is.

I can just hear the excuses now: "I normally can land in the peas", "I have never fallen before", "I felt pressured by the attention".

I am pretty sure that one person that I knew would be alive today were these rules enacted.

Do you know anyone who would?


I currently jump a XAOS-21 120 at a 2.0 wingloading with approximately 600 jumps.And I would happily take a test to prove my canopy skill, if I fail then I don't need to be jumping a highly loaded canopy.


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 10, 2003, 12:50 PM
Post #6 of 289 (4818 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

cant say i like the way you set your poll up it reads to much like exit polls where they are trying to steer you to the answer they want to hear, but i guess thats a problem with polls in general..

so i voted education without regulation.

280 jumps

1.1 on my 190
1.36 on the 150s (i have been and will be jumping mostly)

obviously i'm pretty close to the guidlines proposed, however that is a personal choice and once i feel comfortable with the 150 (and can consistantly perform the tasks BillV recommends) i'll be going to a 135. No matter if thats 50 or 500 jumps from now..


Premier Remster  (C License)

Jun 10, 2003, 12:52 PM
Post #7 of 289 (4815 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Regulation with education,

1.5 on a Stileto 170
870 jumps
non-US jumper (CSPA, but our BSR are quite similars to yours)


Ron

Jun 10, 2003, 12:57 PM
Post #8 of 289 (4802 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
cant say i like the way you set your poll up it reads to much like exit polls where they are trying to steer you to
the answer they want to hear, but i guess thats a problem with polls in general..

I tried to write them as fair as I could.

In reply to:
so i voted education without regulation.

Now thats funny since I added "do nothing I don't see a problem/personal freedom for you"


SkydiveMonkey  (B 102345)

Jun 10, 2003, 12:57 PM
Post #9 of 289 (4801 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Education and more coaches for canopy control. There's RW and FF coaches everywhere, but how many good canopy coaches are there around? Crazy


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 10, 2003, 1:03 PM
Post #10 of 289 (4793 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I do feel that people should be able to do as they please, and that there is a problem with people flying wings they dont know how to fly..

however i feel that trying to protect people from themselves and their own stupidity is a road we should not go farther down..

offer the options for training, encourage them to seek knowledge as the smart thing to do, and shake your head when they ignore you and pound in anyway..

i never had any problems finding training or getting expert advice when i wanted it..the difference is i wanted it..if others dontUnsure oh well in skydiving ignorance IS painful..

the adage applies "you can lead a horse to water...."


andy2

Jun 10, 2003, 1:17 PM
Post #11 of 289 (4782 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

education with no regulation, just because I feel confident in my ability to come to the correct answer for myself, and being the ego centric bastard that I am feel that everyone else is like I am. I tend to steer clear of regulation, regulation is for pussies.

15 jumps, .75 WL


Ron

Jun 10, 2003, 1:20 PM
Post #12 of 289 (4775 views)
Shortcut
Re: [andy2] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

You have an AAD? An RSL?

Did you go to a DZ and work with an instructor?

Seems like you have already had a bunch of regulation


andy2

Jun 10, 2003, 1:29 PM
Post #13 of 289 (4758 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

dont get me wrong, I think some things should be regulated. The DZ gave me a student canopy to use during AFF, etc. Obviously they didn't give me the choice to fly that stiletto 120. And there was an AAD and RSL on it, but I think by the time I buy my first rig I should have enough experience to choose a decent 1:1 WL, or something a little less or greater than that. This is analogous to the ruling that all students must have an AAD until they get off student status, where by then they should decide for themselves if they want one. Same thing with canopies. I feel confident in myself that I will choose whats best for me, but like I said, thats pretty egocentric as now that I think about it I can probably think of some people that I don't think would choose the right canopy to fly...who knows, I don't want anymore regulationSmile


CanuckInUSA  (D 26396)

Jun 10, 2003, 1:44 PM
Post #14 of 289 (4738 views)
Shortcut
Re: [andy2] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Andy

I choose not to use an RSL because I've heard enough negative things about them and I hope/believe I will have the witts to properly cutaway and go for silver should the need arise (which it has yet to happen in my short skydiving career). But I do choose to use a cypres because I will be a dead man if I collide with someone in freefall and am unable to deploy my main or my reserve. Of course with an AAD, I really need to be careful with my main deployment altitudes. As far as canopies are concerned, seek out as much information as you can from the experienced people you jump with and get some extra training when available. As a 260+ jump skydiver, I know a lot more about the sport than you do. But I know squat compared to guys like Ron, Billvon, Quade, SkymonkeyOne, Hooknswoop etc, etc, etc and the only way we'll get to their levels of experience is to survive and not make the same mistakes than many others are making. Freedom is a good thing, but it does come at a price.


(This post was edited by CanuckInUSA on Jun 10, 2003, 2:06 PM)


rgoper  (C 32349)

Jun 10, 2003, 1:51 PM
Post #15 of 289 (4731 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

i voted education without regulation. once we let someone regulate our sport, or any facet of it, it will be overrun by regulation. i believe that wingloading is not the problem, education is. any time you clear an aff student in under 20 jumps, etc...that's not good at any wing load. if we regulate wingloading, will we be submitting to RUA next? not that i would care, but it's the "opening the door" to safety nazis i'm concerned about.

500+ jumps, 1 cut-away/reserve ride. flying a HeatWave 170^2 @ 1.55 wing, not a scratch...yet, i know i'm not infallible and i've lived long enough to realize my mortality!


grega  (D 100020)

Jun 10, 2003, 2:07 PM
Post #16 of 289 (4713 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that the only thing that would solve this problem, is to get licenced for certain canopies and wingloadings.
for example: as a student you can fly square or round canopy (if they are anywhere yet) loaded maximum 0.8
and if you want to get a licence for another canopy, you had to go to canopy control school where they'd teach you how to fly for example any square main loaded up to 1.2. and you had to do certain tasks, which your canopy control instructor would gave you. and you have to do them right otherwise you'd fail and wouldn't get the licence for square canopies loaded 1.2. tasks would be like landing in 30 x 30 feet big marked place, do a flat turn, land crosswind, ...
if you already had or made the licence for square canopies 1.2 you could then for example go to squares or elipticals up to 1.4. and you had to do the same tasks and more. something like landing it on front risers or so.
i don't know what the tasks, wing loadings, canopies ,classes would be. it's just the idea.

And you wouldn't have to have, i don't know 1000 jumps to get a velocity loaded 2.0. all you had to do is get a licence for xbraced canopies loaded up to 2.0. Off course that licence would be very hard to get. you'd have to be really good at canopy control,... and you couldn't jump from student class directly to xbrace 2.0 class. you'd have to take all classes between, and pass them of course.

But it would prevent that anyone who has 2000 jumps and knows shit about HP canopies, because he was flying manta 280 for all those 2000 jumps, would kill himself.
and would also let any very talented, young skydiver who can fly velocity loaded at 2.0 better and safer at 500 jumps than most of people. but just can't because he can't get a canopy. though that kind of talented young skydivers are very rare, but some of them exist.

Just my thought about all this wingloading stuff...


Premier faulknerwn  (D 17441)
Moderator
Jun 10, 2003, 2:41 PM
Post #17 of 289 (4689 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Education with Regulation. I'm tired of having friends maimed and killed.

Cobalt 75, 2.0+ wing-loading (depending on lead), 3200 jumps.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 10, 2003, 3:22 PM
Post #18 of 289 (4658 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rgoper] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>once we let someone regulate our sport, or any facet of it, it will be
>overrun by regulation.

We already have regulations - seven primary ones for experienced jumpers, with about 20 if you count each component of each BSR as one regulation. We haven't been overrun yet. So the question is not - do we avoid regulation? Too late; we have it. The question is - if we have 21 BSR's instead of 20, and it saves the lives of 12 jumpers a year, is that worth it? To the people who are saved, it of course is. To the new jumper who cannot jump his Stiletto 107 until he takes a canopy control course, of course it is not worth it (unless he would otherwise becomes one of the 12.)

>but it's the "opening the door" to safety nazis i'm concerned about.

The door has been open for 30 years now. Nothing really slimy has walked in.


AndyMan  (D 25698)

Jun 10, 2003, 3:52 PM
Post #19 of 289 (4647 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I voted for regulation.

Peer preasure isn't working, Education will only work if it is required, "optional" education like we have now with a few "canopy flight schools" around the country doesn't work.

Education will work if it is backed up by regulations. Jumpers should be evaluated, and tested before being allowed to fly small wings.

I would require this of all new jumpers, I wouldn't allow people to progress beyond a certain wingloading no matter how many jumps they have. E.G. - none of this "1.1 at 100, 1.2 at 200" stuff. Put a hard limit at 1.2 and only allow those with the rating to progress beyond.

I would require this "rating" before granting a "D" licence.

1.6 at 500 jumps.

_Am


wmw999  (D 6296)

Jun 10, 2003, 4:01 PM
Post #20 of 289 (4637 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rgoper] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
i voted education without regulation. once we let someone regulate our sport, or any facet of it, it will be overrun by regulation

If we regulate ourselves, then we don't have to wait for someone else to do it.

It's not just fatalities. It's serious injuries; someone could probably do a cost-benefit analysis from a medical bills point of view and see a pretty impressive number. Based on the types of injuries I used to see in the early 80's, I would figure that 80-90% of the really serious landing fractures have high performance canopies contributing.

Obviously all won't be eliminated. But let's say we cut them in half. That's a significant change in the injury rate. And since you can get out of it with education (and I'd even like an alternate skills test for people who don't have access to good canopy education, or else traveling canopy certification folks, kind of like ICCs travel now).

All we're talking about doing is increasing the amount of hassle you have to go through before buying a canopy that significantly increases your chance of hurting or killing yourself.

Edited to add: 1.15 wingloading, 1200 jumps

Wendy W.


(This post was edited by wmw999 on Jun 10, 2003, 9:02 PM)


tbrown  (D 6533)

Jun 10, 2003, 4:06 PM
Post #21 of 289 (4637 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SkydiveMonkey] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Education and more coaches for canopy control. There's RW and FF coaches everywhere, but how many good canopy coaches are there around? Crazy

Standards for canopy coaches can be defined and there are plenty of good canopy pilots at the small DZ's that can't support a regular canopy school. This does have to be flexible enough to be fair to the small operations, we don't all jump at turbo heaven DZ's.

Here's another question though, at what point do we lift the regulation ? At 500 jumps ? At a D license ? Is there a point where we finally throw up our hands and say, "by now you oughta know what you can handle" ? Or do we set a hard standard, "if you want to fly a WL of 2.0 you WILL demonstrate proficiency, regardless of whether or not you have 5000 jumps" ? Another question is whether we can get PIA into the act, will the manufacturer's support regulations that on the face of it restrict their potential market ? Anyone here own a really hot little sports car or motorcycle ? These are just some questions to consider.

I'm for some kind of regulation, the fact that over half our fatalities are happening under open canopies should really be an EMBARRASSMENT to us all.

I jump a 230 Spectre with a 1.05 WL, for now anyway.


Jessica  (B 25202)

Jun 10, 2003, 4:23 PM
Post #22 of 289 (4631 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Regulation. I'm at 1.1 with just under 200 jumps.

Quote:
the fact that over half our fatalities are happening under open canopies should really be an EMBARRASSMENT to us all.

Right on.


(This post was edited by Jessica on Jun 10, 2003, 4:23 PM)


rhino  (D 22500)

Jun 10, 2003, 5:16 PM
Post #23 of 289 (4604 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Jessica] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
the fact that over half our fatalities are happening under open canopies should really be an EMBARRASSMENT to us all.

I don't agree... Anyone can fall through the air in freefall. Everyone has to land a canopy. It is the hardest part of skydiving. There is nothing at all embarrasing about it. It should simply be showing that more focus should be put on canopy flight instead of back flips and front flips and barrell rolls all of which I haven't had to do since AFF. But landing a canopy is something I do on every jump.


towerrat  (D 28189)

Jun 10, 2003, 5:41 PM
Post #24 of 289 (4590 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Ron just thinks I'm gonna die..................


Rdutch  (D 24618)

Jun 10, 2003, 6:07 PM
Post #25 of 289 (4574 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I myself (for once) dont know how to vote, I do know that something needs to be done, Jump #s dont succesfully show knowledge or talent. But there needs to be something done, if you are going to strap a high wingloaded parachute to your back, you are taking a lot of responsability, to yourself and to the people that share the air and landing area with you. I myself open and try as hard as I can to land last or first, its my opinion when I am in the air that everyone else there is trying to kill me and I want to stay as far away as possibe. To me my parachute, is there to save me, and maybe give me a good swoop, if the air is open. It pisses me off, that so many people big or small canopy dont think about safety and not just in landing, they should think about the air as well. example (someone that is afraid as hell of someone near them under canopy, but still lands in a large group of people in a short time just to land near the pea's). When a load of 23 people all land in 20 feet of each other in less than a minute, with canopies that range from .08 to 2.7 wingloading something is wrong.

Education: Yes there needs to be education, if not more people will die, yes I said WILL!
As hard as gear manufacturers work at making skydiving safer, jumpers work harder to make it more dangerous.
Dropzone owners, STA's, everyone needs to step up to the plate and if you see someone make a stupid mistake or judgement, tell them. Gear dealers need to stop selling people canopies they arent ready for. I have myself seen a LOT of recent people trying out Velocities, Xaos's, and Fx's that have no reason being under that canopy whatsoever, I have helped wash blood off one myself that the guy was told he is asking for it, and thank god he is alive today.

BSR: Maybe we have to do this, as long as we let people make up their minds about what they dont understand, then we are allowing them to endanger us as well as themselves. Im still not decided on this and since I have a lot of experience, I dont want to limit people's growth, and I also know where I came from (Broken Femur, hooked it in small canopy lucky to be alive, 400 jumps) but from where I am at now, I think that everyone will be safer if we limit who can fly what. It is hard to decide who, and what, and who says who and what, but in the direction we are heading we need to do something.

Final thought: Everyone and anyone, that jumps a small canopy (any canopy for that thought) has a responsability to themselves and the people in the air with them, Just being capable of landing a canopy says squat about you, you need to be mature enough in your progression, to know what will keep you alive and the people around you alive also. That is what defines what canopy your ready for. It isnt what you can land, a monkey can land a ve90, but a monkey can kill anyone on the way down. Most of all, be safe and think about things, just cause you can land a canopy doesnt mean you can fly that canopy, if everyone doesn't start making good decisions the ability to make a decision will be taken from us.
It is everyone's responsability, to make sure we are ALL smart and safe. Give opinions, ask opinions.

Anyone that has been in the sport a long time, should have seen the one! We see them all the time, we all go yeah he's the next, and usually he is. This shouldnt happen. We need to stop looking and saying yeah he will hook it in soon, and instead do something from stopping that from happening. If it was someone that pulled low instead of hooked low he would be grounded, why isnt someone grounded/reprimanded for hooking low.

Anyway I have said enough, think about it and make your own mind up. Be carefull and be smart. Its not your own life you are responsable for its everyone that you jump with's.

my 2cents.

Edited to add 2000+ jumps 2.3 wingloading today.


(This post was edited by Rdutch on Jun 10, 2003, 7:06 PM)


colbrodie  (D 24692)

Jun 10, 2003, 6:15 PM
Post #26 of 289 (1603 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm all for it too, Ron.

Jumps: 400+
Wingload: 1.2 and I LOVE my canopy! Smile


rhino  (D 22500)

Jun 10, 2003, 6:28 PM
Post #27 of 289 (1596 views)
Shortcut
Re: [colbrodie] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm against BSR.

390 jumps so far. 1.95 150+ on current canopy. 50+ on a Diablo110 at 1.7 before that. I LOVE my canopy. But some call me NUTS!! Tongue


nathaniel

Jun 10, 2003, 6:39 PM
Post #28 of 289 (1595 views)
Shortcut
Re: [faulknerwn] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

education w/o hard regulation.

a pinch over 1.0, 88 jumps, over 1.1 when I put all my weights on. Would this proposed regulation mean I need special training to belly-fly with weights? But I don't need special training to do head-down without? I understand and share the desire to increase safety, but I'm not buying into the argument that decreased WL directly translates to fewer or less severe accidents. Less severe accidents of a particular type OK, but it doesn't matter to me whether a jumper hurts him/herself one way vs another--I don't think that hook-turn injuries are less desirable than other types of injuries I think they all suck equally. Has it occurred to any of the proponents that people jumping at higher WL might tend to do more crazy sh!t in general? That forcing WL decisions on people maybe isn't taking into account all factors that determine injury / fatality rate?

What-if scenario to get a feel for your stance on regulation: What if we instituted hard WL regulation and as a result no-one with less than 500 jumps hurt his/herself doing a hook turn, but one year later the total injury and fatality rates for persons < 500 jumps was the same as before the WL rule -- other types of accidents became more prevalent among low-timers. Would you conclude that WL regulation is inappropriate? What if in our fantasy world WL regulation was then repealed, and the injury/fatality rates for low-timers still stayed the same. Would this be proof that the temporary WL regulation was hogwash?

I think that reflex regulations and wing loading are both symptoms of greater problems. I could be persuaded that WL regulation is worthwhile, but it will take more than blanket "it'll reduce the injury rate" statements. WL regulation has cost, and to make me think it's worthwhile I need explanations not promises.

I concede that many (most!) of the people here have far more skydiving experience than me, but that only reinforces my belief that we can do better than "we have a hunch it will do good". Road to hell and all.

nathaniel


geronimo

Jun 10, 2003, 7:20 PM
Post #29 of 289 (1582 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Whats yours?
Please include
Wingload and # of jumps.

Ron et al.........

This is an FYI type post.

Keep in mind that only about 1/3 of the USPA BOD actually reads this forum. If you want to make sure they hear your voice you have to either email them directly or use
fullboardATuspa.org

The process of a new BSR:
A proposed BSR goes through the Safety and Training Committee, then the full BOD. If a proposed BSR is fully endorsed by the S&T Comm. then usually the motion will pass. When there is a split in the S&T Comm. there's no telling if the motion would pass.

I would like to point out that there are two of the 6 S&T Comm. members that have already stated on this forum that they would be opposed to WL limitation BSRs. I do not know what the rest of the committee thinks. I do know that John Leblanc of Performance Designs is also opposed to WL regulation. It just does not work right- even in the countries that have such restrictions. There are many reasons for this. The BOD pays attention to people in the field that are considered experts in a certain area. John Leblanc is such an expert.

We all want to see these low turn or off site injuries or fatalities eliminated. We realize that a WL restriction might mitigate the injuries. Such a rule would be unwieldly to implement. You gave several reasons for that, so I do not have to convince you of that. We also realize that skydivers are an independent lot and should not be restricted unnecessarily.

I encourage anyone that has an idea to write the BOD directly. I also encourage you to be flexible in that idea. Many times a second, third or ump-teenth iteration of an idea works - not the first cut.

You might think it is kind of stoopid of me to help you get your proposal through the USPA political process. I do not want to see your BSR WL limitation in place. I think that there is some middle ground - something yet to be defined - that will help eliminate these injuries and fatalities and still give other jumpers freedoms.

Iterate.


WL on my PD 170 0.85-1
WL on my Safire 149 0.97-1.14
somewhere around 5000 jumps.
I have absolutely no desire to land at 20 mph or more.


lauras  (D License)

Jun 10, 2003, 7:58 PM
Post #30 of 289 (1568 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
more focus should be put on canopy flight instead of back flips and front flips and barrell rolls all of which I haven't had to do since AFF

Do you understand why you had to do the flips & barrell rolls during AFF? Have you ever had an unstable exit? What did you do - a front flip or a back flip? I think most of us can agree that learning to get stable is a fairly important part of AFF .

Yes, more focus and time could/should be placed on canopy flight, but that should be in addition to the education students currently receive - not instead of.

As for me, 625 jumps, 1.25 wingload depending on whether or not I've been to the gym and BSRs are fine by me, but I highly doubt that will ever happen.


okalb  (D 22854)

Jun 10, 2003, 8:13 PM
Post #31 of 289 (1559 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Has anyone noticed that the majority of the people opposed to the proposed BSR are the people with lower jump numbers.

I am not saying that there aren't any higher experienced people that are opposed, but it just seems odd that the "older" jumpers that have seen it all happen over and over again are for regulation while the newbies all fight against it. Interesting....

1400 jumps 2.0 (100% for regulation)


nathaniel

Jun 10, 2003, 8:33 PM
Post #32 of 289 (1546 views)
Shortcut
Re: [okalb] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

have you noticed the proposed bsr would not affect people with high jump numbers

a ha

nathaniel


ladyskydiver

Jun 10, 2003, 8:36 PM
Post #33 of 289 (1545 views)
Shortcut
Re: [okalb] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey, Oren!

I'm opposed to the BSR. I have 114 jumps and my current wingloading is 0.91 to 1. I'm in absolutely no hurry to downsize. I still have a ton to learn with my canopy. I've taken a canopy class with Scott Miller and am seriously considering taking it again when he's at our DZ in the fall. Just for a refresher. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about my canopy and landings.

I think we've got a good system in place. Yes, people are getting hurt or killed which totally sucks!!! But, the reality is that skydiving is a dangerous sport. Everyone going into it knows that you can die from this sport - be in your screw up or someone else's that happens to be in the air with you.

Would I like to see zero injuries and zero deaths? Hell yes!! Reality is that it will never happen.

I'm very lucky with the DZ that I belong to and the DZ's I've visited in that I can ask questions and get answers. And a lot of the "old timers" in the sport are more than willing to give me advice when they feel I need it. Or to yell at me if they feel I need it. I respect that. Adding another BSR is not going to change what is happening right now. What will help change things is people being willing to take newbies under their wings. If some new face shows up at the DZ, someone (S&TA or whomever) goes up and introduces themselves to the newbie and gives them a tour of the DZ which has questions asked - what are you flying? What's your wing loading? etc.

Rules and regs - a way will be found to get around them. It's just like speed limit laws. They are there. Theoretically, everyone follows them, but in reality, there is always someone that will push the limits. Will push what their capabilities are.

We can not regulate safety 100%. To do so would be to stay on the ground and not fly. Because you do not need to land....if you never jump out of a plane.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 10, 2003, 9:55 PM
Post #34 of 289 (1524 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

> but I'm not buying into the argument that decreased WL directly
>translates to fewer or less severe accidents.

It does. I have a very good friend who is still with us because she was jumping a loading of about 1.1 to 1 when she screwed up bigtime. She came very close to dying; another few MPH, a few less square feet and I would have spent a day at a funeral home instead of 3 months sitting with her in rehab.

>I don't think that hook-turn injuries are less desirable than other types
>of injuries I think they all suck equally.

I agree; but hook turn DEATHS suck a lot more than hook turn injuries. A lighter loading will turn many potential fatalities into serious injuries. We can learn from a serious injury; we can't learn once we're dead.

>Has it occurred to any of the proponents that people jumping at higher
> WL might tend to do more crazy sh!t in general?

Not sure what the point is here. If they kill themselves driving drunk it's really not an issue for this thread.

>but one year later the total injury and fatality rates for persons < 500
> jumps was the same as before the WL rule -- other types of accidents
>became more prevalent among low-timers.

Hmm. If a completely new kind of fatality started (i.e. people started trying to land wingsuits) then I would consider it simple evolution of the sport - we are once again pushing the limits and paying the price. If overall fatalities from all causes went up then you might have a good argument.

>I could be persuaded that WL regulation is worthwhile, but it will take
> more than blanket "it'll reduce the injury rate" statements.

I don't really make any claims about injuries, just fatalities. If you restrict loadings to those greater than X, and require canopy training to exceed that number, you will cut down on fatalities. From the beginning of 2002 to now, 3 people died because they didn't know how to turn low to avoid something. 7 simply turned too low to survive under their wing loadings for whatever reason - attempted hook turn etc. We can't ask them why they did it. Of those 7, 6 had under 500 jumps, and 5-6 had loadings of over 1.3 to 1. Look at Ron's original post for the details.

So we have ten jumpers who would almost certainly be alive today if they had gotten canopy training, and most likely to be alive if they had been restricted to a lighter loading. Can anyone guarantee that they would survive? No. We have to use our best judgement there; there are no certainties with this stuff,

>WL
>regulation has cost, and to make me think it's worthwhile I need
>explanations not promises.

Ignoring the problem also has a very real cost. It's hard to put a price on human lives, but whatever that price is, we've paid ten times that price over the past year or so. The question is - what's the best way to go? The best way, hands down, is simple education. Get people into canopy control classes. Unfortunately, the people who really need to be there are not the jumpers who are conservative on their canopy selection and want to learn more - Michele is a good example of this. The jumpers who really need the education are the jumpers who are sure they don't need any education. They are good enough, careful enough, skilled enough etc to not need it, at least until they get injured/killed.

So any optional canopy control thing is, to me, similar to doing nothing. We have canopy training now. It's not getting to the people who need it. How do we do it? Putting a restriction on what they can jump until they _do_ get the training is one way to do it. I'd be open to others, but I haven't heard a good one yet.


nacmacfeegle  (D 11004)

Jun 11, 2003, 12:31 AM
Post #35 of 289 (1512 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I've been watching this firestorm from across the pond with interest. I'm voting for education without regulation. This doesn't mean that I don't recognise an issue here, but I do believe the 'regulation' should be at a local level.
So much of assessing a jumper's ability rests in actually knowing the jumper concerned, their attitude towards learning, and progresion, character, general awareness, availability of peer advice, physical condition, currency, etc.
I reckon the answer lies in local policing rather than a blanket control. Although some reconised guidance would certainly help the situation, eg the adoption of the Dutch system, Brian Germain's guidance or similar, which also recognises canopy type. In the UK our CCIs (equiv of US S&TA) will ground you (after several words in your small and shell like) if they think you are pushing the limit, which makes them kinda nazi-like, but it does seem to have an affect, if you have issues with the local 'police' go somewhere else.
The other problem I see is the availability of canopy coaches at smaller or more remote DZs, and the issue of visiting foreign jumpers.

I do agree that 'something has to be done'. I'm just not sure that enforced education will make a huge reduction on the incident rates.

I don't indulge in HP landings, I've learned the hard way and am lucky to be able to talk about it.
1200+ current wl app 1.6, I've lost too many valuable friends to badly judged HP landings.


samp76  (A 43239)

Jun 11, 2003, 3:01 AM
Post #36 of 289 (1493 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

0.9:1 to 1:1 depending on how big of a lunch I ate.

I have just under 50 jumps.

-Sam-Wink


(This post was edited by samp76 on Jun 11, 2003, 3:02 AM)


Premier Tonto  (D 515)
Moderator
Jun 11, 2003, 5:23 AM
Post #37 of 289 (1469 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Limit wingload to jump numbers and a training program. When we were killing people in freefall we figured out a way to keep them alive. Now that we're killing them under canopy we should figure out a way to keep them alive.

My wing loading is 1.7

I have 3900 skydives

t


psw097  (D License)

Jun 11, 2003, 5:41 AM
Post #38 of 289 (1462 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm for natural selection. The gene pool is already getting thin with AFF programs graduating students that cannot spot, cannot pack and are scared to get out below 6K.

I'll guess that liability would become an issue if a BSR was implemented. Do you want to be the canopy coach that graduates little johney to an "open" canopy a week before he pounds in? Or, the DZO where someone above the stated WL eats dirt. With WL it is an easy connection between the accident and the "rules" - Good chance the lawyers will jump all over it.

1200 jumps. Current wingloading - 1.9 to 2.5 on my mains, 1.7 and 1.5 on reserves.


okalb  (D 22854)

Jun 11, 2003, 5:47 AM
Post #39 of 289 (1454 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ladyskydiver] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Hiya Cora,

Quote:
I have 114 jumps and my current wingloading is 0.91 to 1. I'm in absolutely no hurry to downsize.

If everyone thought like you, we wouldn't have a problem, but they don't and we do.

Quote:
I've taken a canopy class with Scott Miller and am seriously considering taking it again when he's at our DZ in the fall. Just for a refresher. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about my canopy and landings.

Once again the exception not the rule. We have to create regulations for the lowest common denominator not the exceptions. That is why I do believe in a "test out" process where you could get that rocket that you want if you prove that you can handle it.

Quote:
I think we've got a good system in place. Yes, people are getting hurt or killed which totally sucks!!! But, the reality is that skydiving is a dangerous sport.

Here is where I strongly disagree. The system that we have in place clearly doesn't work. I have only been skydiving for 5 years and the number of people that I have seen hurt or killed under canopies that they were not ready for is absurd. Most of those people had been spoken to by the "old timers", but every one of them thought that they were the exception not the rule. They were all wrong. Sydiving is a dangerous sport, but if there is a simple way to make it substantially safer, why would anyone be opposed to it?

Quote:
Everyone going into it knows that you can die from this sport - be in your screw up or someone else's that happens to be in the air with you.

And everytime someone dies doing something stupid and unnecessary, it hurts all of us.

Quote:
I'm very lucky with the DZ that I belong to and the DZ's I've visited in that I can ask questions and get answers. And a lot of the "old timers" in the sport are more than willing to give me advice when they feel I need it. Or to yell at me if they feel I need it. I respect that.

Not that I consider myself an "old timer" by any means, but I spend a lot of time working with lower experienced jumpers and the majority that I see don't want to hear it. They know better. The problem is most of the people who hurt themselves under higher wingloads have not been around long enough to understand why they are being stupid. Forcing them to either wait or prove their skills will only make them safer one way or the other. What is the harm in that.

Quote:
What will help change things is people being willing to take newbies under their wings.

I can say first hand that this DOES NOT WORK. I take newbies under my wing all the time and they all want to know about freefall skills, but few want to hear about canopy skills. They all have this "I can land it fine" or "I stand up all my landings" attitude. They don't understand that being able to land it and being safe under it are not the same thing.

Quote:
Rules and regs - a way will be found to get around them.

If there is a regulation in place it makes it easier for the rest of us to stop you from doing it. Telling people "You know it is a really bad idea and here is why" hasn't worked so far.

Quote:
We can not regulate safety 100%.

I don't want to, but this is a simple thing and there is no denying it will at least help the situation

I am not trying to take away your right to jump or even your right to jump something stupid. All I am saying is that we can postpone your jumping something that you are not ready for at least until hopefully you understand why you are being stupid. Those that think they are the exception should have no problem proving their skills. If they are as good as they think they are, they can prove it and buy what they want. I bet you will find that most are NOT as good as they think they are.


btucker  (E 1974)

Jun 11, 2003, 5:55 AM
Post #40 of 289 (1448 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

1.3 & 1.25WL Both ZP squares 580jumps


Blues



edit: Get's more interesting further down this thread! In Australia we had a system where; If you had a WL over [i can't remember exactly but it was low] 1.1 you needed to get a card signed by the CI. It was discontinued for a number of reasons, I don't think many people/DZ's bothered.

I think the Dutch have just introduced a system of regulation in the last quarter on WL, although it only applies if you change canopy – I assume it applies to the reserve canopy as well.



To get my B license I had to do some canopy exercises with a tutor, which I did at a “school” which was sponsored by the APF State Council. This education approach has worked best with me; I've been very lucky in that there are a few excellent canopy tutors in my neck of the woods that care enough about other jumper's safety to give up their time and run school. It's quite regular to see a canopy tutor on my DZ help out by watching us land and offering advice. Formally; The DZSO and CI's should and do this as well. But on a busy DZ they will probably only be able to pull people up about silly and/or dangerous behavior rather than assisting with technique.

There have been a few incidents reported of late where DZOs have “declined” a jumpers business due to the ratio of canopy size vs experience.


What about other factors a canopy besides WL? Elipital, Forgiveness? Flare? Material? These can be your few more <m|k>ph. i.e.For this pilot a clapped out F111 canopy the same size as my Sabre: It would probably be dangerous to me as it wouldn't land as “nice”.


I would suggest regulation to make you attend a canopy school and pass practical exercieses, say as a pre-req for each license level. {Like some display ratings?} The governing body would need to do a heck of a lot more than wave a pen, funds for support of schools, regs and ratings for “canopy tutor” “canopy tutor examiner” etc...


(This post was edited by btucker on Jun 11, 2003, 6:56 AM)


pd190  (D 25471)

Jun 11, 2003, 7:11 AM
Post #41 of 289 (1424 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I know that a few dropzones have or are starting a wingloading restriction according to experience level. I think that it's a good plan. But, education is the key. Good mentoring, good coaching, and the more experienced people helping out the newer crowd will build solid foundations for friendship and skill building.

1.2 with just over 500 jumps.


vt1977  (D License)

Jun 11, 2003, 8:19 AM
Post #42 of 289 (1409 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with you Ron - something has to be done about this problem and it seems that regulation is the only thing that will get through to some people.

No of jumps: 836
Wing loading: 1.2

Vicki


Liemberg  (Student)

Jun 11, 2003, 8:51 AM
Post #43 of 289 (1397 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Wading through all the post in the heated debate about wingloadregulations vs. -education I noticed that one thing is missing in the discussion: the difference between larger 'turbine type' DZ's and smaller 'Cessna type' operations.
It seems to me that on the larger DZ's 'people in charge' want to regulate where on the smaller places they want to educate.
(for 'regulate' you can fill in: formal training in canopy handling, signing of proficiency cards, minimum jump numbers for certain wingloadings etc.; for 'educate' you can fill in none of the above but instead a one-on-one approach on a day-to-day basis with a solid knowledge of all the jumpers -and their abillities- at your place...)

Also, some of the 'regulators' point to several countries where regulation is in place already.

I'm from the Netherlands where we have this type of regulation and frankly, not everyone is happy with it.

It is of course a problem of oversight and that is a lot easier with 20 people downsizing during a season than with 20 people downsizing every weekend - let alone people borrowing gear which they might buy etc.

Where does that leave a national organisation like USPA? I would urge them not to fall into the same pit as their dutch counterparts, who wrote elaborate regulations that take into consideration things like jump-numbers, wingloading, jumps-in-the-last-year, mandatory canopy-training jumps and type of canopy with a list of types - which of course is incomplete. They put this whole thing in the BSR's so it is mandatory on all affiliated clubs and centres - yet almost nobody understands it completely...

If you were to regulate, you should regulate the minimum i.e. things everyone can agree upon. (Come to think of it: Flipping through a Para-Gear catalogue I find lots of wingload recommendations - seems like every manufacturer has them - enforcing those shouldn't be to much of a problem since you only have to define 'novice' 'intermediate' and 'expert'...)

Would that work as a solution fitting all? Probably not - lots of things that are not very smart when skydiving would remain 'allowed' in the BSR's. And it would not solve the big DZ's 'oversight' problem - but what is to stop the individual DZO to write his own set of rules and enforce them? If your multi-turbine-indoor-packing-world-class-coaches-team-rates-jacuzzi-DZ is attractive enough your clientele will cope with those rules. And there is nothing stopping you to debate / adjust /fine-tune anything "written down" in Perris with what is "written down" in Deland. Again, this would lead to something above a set of USPA rules, applicable to large DZ's with lots of traffic and not much oversight where it comes to the individual jumper.

Of course the 'personal freedom' argument - though appealing - holds no ground here; it didn't in the AAD debates so it doesn't in this debate; when 'personal freedom' results in death and mutilation through lack of knowledge or 'too much testosteron' it looses all appeal rapidly.

2600+ jumps 1,6 semi elliptical - voted education, but now you now why...


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 11, 2003, 10:16 AM
Post #44 of 289 (1373 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CanuckInUSA] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

<100 jumps 1.0 wing loading
<200 jumps 1.1 wing loading
<300 jumps 1.2 wing loading
<400 jumps 1.3 wing loading
<500 jumps 1.4 wing loading

Whenever I see numbers like this I am uneasy. 100, 200 - etc are only "important" numbers because we have 10 fingers and hence adopted a decimal system. Similarly, 1.2, 1.3, etc are clearly tied to our decimal system. The square foot is only important because of the size of the foot of some medieval king. I've no idea of the origin of the pound, but I'm sure it has nothing to do with aerodynamics.

The suggestion to tie wing load to "easy" numbers defined on an arbitrary system of units and an arbitrarily chosen number base and then expect it to solve a problem is plain unscientific.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 11, 2003, 10:24 AM
Post #45 of 289 (1367 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>The suggestion to tie wing load to "easy" numbers defined on an
> arbitrary system of units and an arbitrarily chosen number base and
> then expect it to solve a problem is plain unscientific.

The idea that skydivers will enforce a system that requires them to remember the numbers 67, 117, 362, 597, 684 and 739 (or have to carry a cheat sheet) is unrealistic. We base a great many other experience levels in skydiving on round numbers; seems to work OK.


Watcher  (D 24876)

Jun 11, 2003, 10:36 AM
Post #46 of 289 (1359 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Well, I am not a fan of regulation, I don't like ratings on movies or video games, but I do believe in education. Extensive education, taught initially in a near college classroom enviroment, starting with Theory and physics, then going into theoritical technique and explanation on planform considerations, trim, effect of wingloading on given canopies, what problems a person is expected to encounter, what to look for and how to identify the start of a bad situation.

730 jumps 1.8:1 on a Velocity 103, 2.0:1 on a prototype Rage.

--


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 11, 2003, 12:05 PM
Post #47 of 289 (1335 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>The suggestion to tie wing load to "easy" numbers defined on an
> arbitrary system of units and an arbitrarily chosen number base and
> then expect it to solve a problem is plain unscientific.

The idea that skydivers will enforce a system that requires them to remember the numbers 67, 117, 362, 597, 684 and 739 (or have to carry a cheat sheet) is unrealistic. We base a great many other experience levels in skydiving on round numbers; seems to work OK.

Can you quote a single study or one iota of research that suggests these are appropriate numbers? Based on the discussion in these threads it's not clear to me that the problem has been properly defined yet, and here we are suggesting arbitrary solutions. Not unlike Congress and the HSA.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 11, 2003, 12:17 PM
Post #48 of 289 (1327 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>Can you quote a single study or one iota of research that suggests
> these are appropriate numbers?

Nope, nor can I quote any numbers that say that 2000 feet is a safe minimum altitude (why not 1973 feet?) or that 20/25/50/100/200/500 jumps are good numbers to use for licensing. Would it therefore be your position that such numbers are inappropriate?

>Based on the discussion in these threads it's not clear to me that the
>problem has been properly defined yet . . .

Then I will define it. People are loading canopies too heavily for their experience/skill level, and dying quite often doing it. Education is available, and will help reduce fatalities. It is not being utilized. That's the problem.

>and here we are suggesting arbitrary solutions.

Yep. Like the arbitrary pull-by-2000 foot rule, or the arbitrary 8 hours bottle-to-throttle rule. Rules that may not have any doctoral studies on the statistical difference in expected fatalities between a pull altitude of 1850 and 2150 feet, but rules that have nonetheless saved lives.

No regulation (or even solution) is perfect. We are looking for one that is good enough - even if it's off from perfection by 3.324%.


serls  (A 39918)

Jun 11, 2003, 2:12 PM
Post #49 of 289 (1292 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I would like to see more extensive canopy control education as well as a WL regulation as long as that regulation includes an option for competent canopy pilots to test out and move to another canopy. I could be selfish, but if it prevents someone with a tiny canopy and no idea how to fly it from taking me out then I'm happy.

WL 1.3, 235 Jumps


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 11, 2003, 2:55 PM
Post #50 of 289 (1274 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Can you quote a single study or one iota of research that suggests
> these are appropriate numbers?

Nope, nor can I quote any numbers that say that 2000 feet is a safe minimum altitude (why not 1973 feet?) or that 20/25/50/100/200/500 jumps are good numbers to use for licensing. Would it therefore be your position that such numbers are inappropriate?

>Based on the discussion in these threads it's not clear to me that the
>problem has been properly defined yet . . .

Then I will define it. People are loading canopies too heavily for their experience/skill level, and dying quite often doing it. Education is available, and will help reduce fatalities. It is not being utilized. That's the problem.

>and here we are suggesting arbitrary solutions.

Yep. Like the arbitrary pull-by-2000 foot rule, or the arbitrary 8 hours bottle-to-throttle rule. Rules that may not have any doctoral studies on the statistical difference in expected fatalities between a pull altitude of 1850 and 2150 feet, but rules that have nonetheless saved lives.

No regulation (or even solution) is perfect. We are looking for one that is good enough - even if it's off from perfection by 3.324%.

There have been extensive studies on the effects of alcohol on pilots- the 8 hour rule has basis in research even if the time is rounded to a conveniently rememberable number of hours.

You have no idea if this table is off by 3.324% or 32.4% or even 324% and that IS a deficiency in this proposal. The numbers aren't just rounded for easy memorization, they are totally arbitrary.


Trent

Jun 11, 2003, 2:55 PM
Post #51 of 289 (1088 views)
Shortcut
Re: [serls] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm pretty not-so-surprised when I read this thread. A lot of the people who don't want regulation seem to have, what I would think, are pretty high wingloadings for their jump numbers. Interesting, I wonder why that is?

I'll agree that HAVING to regulate something isn't always the best answer, but you have to look at the reason regulation is being discussed. It's because way too many people are getting overly-aggressive with their downsizing. Maybe they hook in trying to use their risers at 150 jumps, or maybe they femur on a low turn they initiate to avoid someone else. Either way, I don't see why people are opposed to spending more time on larger canopies. If everyone was intelligent enough to know that they could learn a ton from their larger canopy before downsizing... we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately, we have plenty of "experts" who are only after the smallest canopy or rig on the DZ so they look like a badass. These are also the people that you cannot give advice or instruction to after they have a hundred jumps or so. So for people like this, having a regulation would end any argument about the whole situation. For people who are smart enough to know that they don't know it all... this may be a little bit of a hoop to jump through, but they might actually see point in the whole thing.

To people downsizing quickly: Why? Are you just a canopy prodigy that knows better? Do you think that reading about canopy flight and talking about it is a equal substitute for experience? Be careful and be smart. Please.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 11, 2003, 3:01 PM
Post #52 of 289 (1087 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>the 8 hour rule has basis in research even if the time is rounded to a
>conveniently rememberable number of hours.

Can you cite that study, a study that shows that a pilot has above an X chance of being intoxicated 7 hours after having one beer?

> The numbers aren't just rounded for easy memorization, they are totally arbitrary.

You didn't answer my question. Since there are a great many other fairly arbitrary (and round) numbers in skydiving (like the # of jumps required for each license, the # of jumps required to get an I rating, the altitude at which you must open) do you consider all those values invalid?


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 11, 2003, 3:55 PM
Post #53 of 289 (1076 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>the 8 hour rule has basis in research even if the time is rounded to a
>conveniently rememberable number of hours.

Can you cite that study, a study that shows that a pilot has above an X chance of being intoxicated 7 hours after having one beer?


It was done by the US Navy on Naval Aviators about 10 - 12 years ago. Don't have a reference handy. In addition, the rate at which the body metabolizes ethanol is very well known, and the amount needed to cause impairment is very well known.
> The numbers aren't just rounded for easy memorization, they are totally arbitrary.

You didn't answer my question. Since there are a great many other fairly arbitrary (and round) numbers in skydiving (like the # of jumps required for each license, the # of jumps required to get an I rating, the altitude at which you must open) do you consider all those values invalid?

I don't know what level of study was done to determine those numbers. I DO know that no serious study has been done concerning the numbers in this proposal.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 11, 2003, 4:03 PM
Post #54 of 289 (1070 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>I don't know what level of study was done to determine those numbers.

Given that you know of no serious study to validate those numbers, do you consider them invalid? Yes or no.


nathaniel

Jun 11, 2003, 5:49 PM
Post #55 of 289 (1056 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It does. I have a very good friend who is still with us because she was jumping a loading of about 1.1 to 1 when she screwed up bigtime. She came very close to dying; another few MPH, a few less square feet and I would have spent a day at a funeral home instead of 3 months sitting with her in rehab.

I think the point got lost...

If they don't hurt themselves with a small canopy they are still at higher risk of hurting themselves otherwise....so the net effect of canopy regulation may well be nil in terms of fatality rate...just trading one type of incident for another.

I think it's not a wholistic solution to just fiddle with the WL numbers and hope it turns out OK. Like whack-a-mole, you regulate one set of behaviors and the risk-loving jumper inside finds a new way to express itself.

You're allergic to hay. You're standing in a hay field and you have watery eyes. You start sneezing. Do you conclude that you would not be sneezing if you had only a handkerchief to dry your eyes?

He likes to push the edge. He's a low timer and he's jumping a small canopy. He dies in a skydiving accident. Why do you conclude that he would not have died if he wasn't jumping a small canopy?

Once they see the WL BSR in action people will just wise up about unnecessary risks? Of course not.

Quote:
Ignoring the problem also has a very real cost. It's hard to put a price on human lives, but whatever that price is, we've paid ten times that price over the past year or so.

We should eliminate from consideration anything that does not help, and we should consider only those things that we can show will help. I'd rather do nothing than make mistakes. I think this BSR has lost sight of the forest for the trees.

nathaniel


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 11, 2003, 6:00 PM
Post #56 of 289 (1053 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>I don't know what level of study was done to determine those numbers.

Given that you know of no serious study to validate those numbers, do you consider them invalid? Yes or no.

Either they are valid or they are not, and my opinion doesn't change anything. I don't know how they were arrived at. I don't believe in the type of polls that ask people if Earth has been visited by extraterrestrials. If 99% say yes, does that mean there are extraterrestrials among us or does it mean the respondents are clueless?


nathaniel

Jun 11, 2003, 6:10 PM
Post #57 of 289 (1050 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

One difference between those numbers and these numbers is that we already have those numbers but these numbers are new. As long as we are making up numbers, I propose

1.0 < 10000 jumps
1.1 < 20000 jumps
1.2 < 30000 jumps
1.3 < 40000 jumps
1.4 < 50000 jumps

I guarantee to you these numbers are better than Ron's in that they will result in fewer skydiving accidents, if only b/c people give up skydiving for badminton* or something.

nathaniel

* http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/...-sports-injuries.htm


Unstable  (D 28930)

Jun 11, 2003, 6:45 PM
Post #58 of 289 (1037 views)
Shortcut
Re: [colbrodie] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

  All in all it comes down to DZ regulations, and what exactly a DZO feels is an acceptable risk.
Where I come from, Skydive Kansas Has enacted a system resembling this. They are a very safety-oriented DZ and i respect them for that. However, other DZ's in the area have no such regulations, and i don't believe there is a significant difference in injury rate.
My home DZ is very laid back, and in a club-like atmosphere, everybody knows everybody's strengths & weaknesses & relative skill. If somebody is jumping something to hott for their abilities, be assured that they will be spoken to.
Personally, i prefer our system. For starters, in small cessna DZ's, we have the benifit of knowing what everybody is jumping. Problems are usually resolved before a person is airborne. As with skydive KS, i don't know if their restrictions are really necessary. However, somewhere less personal (I.G. Eloy, SDC, Sebastian) may benifit from broad guidelines.

thoughts?

sds


mikkey  (D License)

Jun 11, 2003, 8:54 PM
Post #59 of 289 (1017 views)
Shortcut
Re: [psw097] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

There are good points being made in this thread and then there is BS.

"I'm for natural selection. "

So you like to see more people killed under canopy as a way to improve the average canopy skill level??

"The gene pool is already getting thin with AFF programs graduating students that cannot spot, cannot pack and are scared to get out below 6K. "

So you want different / stricter education? So more regulation for beginners? But no WL regulation?

Or in other words: What are you on about??


mikkey  (D License)

Jun 11, 2003, 9:02 PM
Post #60 of 289 (1014 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
One difference between those numbers and these numbers is that we already have those numbers but these numbers are new. As long as we are making up numbers, I propose

1.0 < 10000 jumps
1.1 < 20000 jumps
1.2 < 30000 jumps
1.3 < 40000 jumps
1.4 < 50000 jumps

I guarantee to you these numbers are better than Ron's in that they will result in fewer skydiving accidents, if only b/c people give up skydiving for badminton* or something.

nathaniel

I get annoyed when people do not treat this issue seriously. Above is a "nonsense" argument and you know it. Very close to saying: "you might as well ban skydiving" - (guess what, if people die like flies they probably will in some countries....) This is a serious issue for serious people. Respect each others opinion and do not get into the BS "throwing". Won't help anybody....


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 11, 2003, 9:26 PM
Post #61 of 289 (1003 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>If they don't hurt themselves with a small canopy they are still at
> higher risk of hurting themselves otherwise....so the net effect of
>canopy regulation may well be nil in terms of fatality rate...just
>trading one type of incident for another.

I do not believe that people who jump small canopies do so because they wish to risk death to a certain degree, and will consequently decrease their risk-taking activities in other areas. I think the suggestion is pretty absurd; by the same token, you could argue that any regulation at all will do nothing, since people forced to pull at 2000 feet will intentionally exit closer to other groups in hopes of increasing their risk sufficiently.

>You're allergic to hay. You're standing in a hay field and you have
>watery eyes. You start sneezing. Do you conclude that you would
> not be sneezing if you had only a handkerchief to dry your eyes?

Uh, no. You avoid areas with hay. If you can't safely land a small HP canopy you avoid putting yourself in situations where you have to do that to survive.

>He likes to push the edge. He's a low timer and he's jumping a small
> canopy. He dies in a skydiving accident. Why do you conclude that he
>would not have died if he wasn't jumping a small canopy?

Because some of us have seen people die under small canopies, and have seen people make the EXACT SAME MISTAKE on larger canopies and survive. And afterwards not one person, ever, has said "yeah, I knew it would get me eventually." They all say "I thought I could handle it."

I've got nothing against people making mistakes. I am in favor of them surviving them, through education - or, if they refuse that, regulation.

>Once they see the WL BSR in action people will just wise up about
>unnecessary risks? Of course not.

The ones who 'opt out' through education definitely will. The ones who don't want that will not wise up. They will make the same mistakes. They will just survive them more often.

>We should eliminate from consideration anything that does not help,
> and we should consider only those things that we can show will help.

We cannot show _anything_ will help without doing it. I cannot prove to you that driving sober is a good way to survive the trip unless you get drunk, try to drive, and do not survive the experience. That's a poor way to determine the effectiveness of driving sober.

> I'd rather do nothing than make mistakes.

And there's the rub. I've seen us do nothing for five years now. It's a mistake.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 11, 2003, 9:30 PM
Post #62 of 289 (1004 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>Either they are valid or they are not, and my opinion doesn't change anything.

I am asking your opinion, as that is what we are all expressing. I suspect you steadfastly refuse to answer because you see some value in setting a minimum pull altitude, even if there have been no peer-reviewed studies proving that 2000 feet is the ideal number - and you fear than such an answer will cause you to admit that you accept an arbitrary number for other regulation.

If this is not the case, then give me an answer. Given that you know of no serious study to validate the 2000 foot minimum opening altitude, do you consider it invalid in your opinion? Yes or no.


nathaniel

Jun 11, 2003, 10:04 PM
Post #63 of 289 (997 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
you could argue that any regulation at all will do nothing, since

Yes. I have argued this point separately. The USPA has very limited regulatory authority to begin with, people's risk preferences notwithstanding. Regulations that are not affirmed by the consent of the membership will be flouted. I don't pull before 3000 b/c it's in the SIM that I have to, I do b/c I think it's a good idea. I usually pull at 4000...

Quote:
...since people forced to pull at 2000 feet will intentionally exit closer to other groups in hopes of increasing their risk sufficiently.

Or by doing hook turns, BASE jumps, by not tracking away from the end of an n-way, or by jumping a small canopy, or by doing CRW without instruction. I have seen this among the same people I see at 1.3 HP and 200 jumps, and I see it as part of human nature outside of skydiving as well. This is not to say that all potential expressions of a certain level of risk would be equivalent to individual jumpers. It's more of a statement about averages. I think people willing to take up to a certain amount of risk will take up to that amount of risk as they see fit. Diminishing a person's ability to take particular risks may therefore have unpredictable results.

Quote:
I cannot prove to you that driving sober is a good way to survive the trip unless you get drunk, try to drive, and do not survive the experience. That's a poor way to determine the effectiveness of driving sober.

I disagree on that one. There's several ways to build arguments: logical deduction, empirical study, etc. I'm trying to present a logical counter-argument to this proposed BSR. I don't have enough numbers for a compelling statistical analysis...

that two events are correlated does not necessarily imply they are causally related, or that they are causally related in the way that we expect.

Quote:
And there's the rub. I've seen us do nothing for five years now. It's a mistake.

How do you know?

nathaniel


downwardspiral  (A License)

Jun 11, 2003, 11:53 PM
Post #64 of 289 (988 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I jump a Saber 190 loaded at 1.2 (was 1.1, I'm working on thatUnsure). I have 270 jumps. 240 freefly jumps.


I bounced this one back and forth in my head for a while. Decided on education without regulation. Reason is... I just recently learned about the British Parachute Association requiring freefly coaching before you can freefly with anybody else. I don't personally like that idea however I do realize the BPA is just trying to make the sport safer. When do we cross the line from regulation to over-regulation?


Lets take a different point of view. Imagine checking in at a hypothetical DZ for the first time for that ever popular boogie. Manifest says,"Can I please see your license, membership, logbook, reserve repack card, reserve pin seal, AAD(cause AADs are required at this DZ), blood type, and I'm going to need you to blow in to this breathalizer. Oh and lets not forget I'm going to need to see what kind of main you jump and since we can not trust you we are going to need you to pull it out of the container so we can see the tag. Thank you for your patience Mr. Skydiver. I understand that this is quite a nuisance but it is for your own good and safety. Oh btw here is your rig ID stickers. Please stick one on your container and the other to your forehead. Paul the pilot will need to see these before he allows you to board to make sure you didn't borrow somebody elses rig. Also if you are caught jumping the wrong size canopy without authorization from S&TA Sally you will be forced to buy a case of expensive, imported, bottled beer.Sly

I apologize for the sarcasm but I don't see regulation as a realistic solution. Especially for large DZs where they can not hold everybody's hand during a skydive.

Crazy

Next thing you know we will have to get permission from our local S&TA before Performance Design will sell us a canopy.


livenletfly  (D 28096)

Jun 12, 2003, 12:49 AM
Post #65 of 289 (978 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

gosh thats a tough call. i hate rules and regulation evrywhere you turn especialy in skydiving but im not to fond of going to funerals either.
375 jumps
1.4 wl


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 12, 2003, 6:52 AM
Post #66 of 289 (946 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Either they are valid or they are not, and my opinion doesn't change anything.

I am asking your opinion, as that is what we are all expressing. I suspect you steadfastly refuse to answer because you see some value in setting a minimum pull altitude, even if there have been no peer-reviewed studies proving that 2000 feet is the ideal number - and you fear than such an answer will cause you to admit that you accept an arbitrary number for other regulation.

If this is not the case, then give me an answer. Given that you know of no serious study to validate the 2000 foot minimum opening altitude, do you consider it invalid in your opinion? Yes or no.

I don't know how USPA arrived at 2000ft, but it seems as if some serious thought was given to it based on KNOWN information such as human reaction times, measurables such as time to cut away and deploy a reserve, fall rates etc. In this sense, 2000ft is certainly more reasonable than 500ft or 10,000ft. You can't say the same about the jump numbers in the BSR proposal discussed here, where the numbers ARE TOTALLY ARBITRARY and based on no measurements of average learning rates and no account is taken of differences between individuals' capacity to learn or canopy parameters other than area.

IMO the proposal is well intentioned but ill conceived and needs more work before it is acceptable.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 12, 2003, 6:58 AM
Post #67 of 289 (944 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mikkey] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
One difference between those numbers and these numbers is that we already have those numbers but these numbers are new. As long as we are making up numbers, I propose

1.0 < 10000 jumps
1.1 < 20000 jumps
1.2 < 30000 jumps
1.3 < 40000 jumps
1.4 < 50000 jumps

I guarantee to you these numbers are better than Ron's in that they will result in fewer skydiving accidents, if only b/c people give up skydiving for badminton* or something.

nathaniel

I get annoyed when people do not treat this issue seriously. Above is a "nonsense" argument and you know it. Very close to saying: "you might as well ban skydiving" - (guess what, if people die like flies they probably will in some countries....) This is a serious issue for serious people. Respect each others opinion and do not get into the BS "throwing". Won't help anybody....

You are wrong. He is using an extreme example to illustrate the arbitrariness of the original proposal. How do you know Ron's numbers make sense? WHat data were used? What level of risk is acceptable? All his numbers do is put the risk at a lower level than Ron's. Until those things are defined, any numbers pulled out of a hat are as good as any other numbers.


Watcher  (D 24876)

Jun 12, 2003, 7:00 AM
Post #68 of 289 (943 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I have been thinking about this for awhile. I believe in education over regulation, but think for the most part the numbers are what I disagree with because they are very restrictive.

Something like:

<300 jumps <=1.3
<600 jumps <=1.5

At 600 jumps hopefully you have learned quite a bit, and can make responsible descisions on what to buy, hopefuly putting jumps in increments getting you down to whatever you wanted (ie dont go from a 1.5 wingloading on jump 599 and then on jump 600 jump a 2.4 loaded canopy.

Also notice that I raised the final jump count by 100 before you could go to the super performance. But with this you have 250-300 jumps to play around with a slightly higher wingloading .1-.2 that allows you to work with a canopy for a significantly longer period of time. And buying a canopy for the next 300 jumps is quite plausible, and common place. While 100 is not.

my $.02

--


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 12, 2003, 7:09 AM
Post #69 of 289 (943 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>

I've got nothing against people making mistakes. I am in favor of them surviving them, through education - or, if they refuse that, regulation.

In a typical year 1 skydiver out of 1000 will die. We can only reduce that to zero by regulating skydiving out of existence. If that is not acceptable, then you have to define what level of risk is acceptable to you. And if someone else has a higher risk tolerance than you, why should your opinion prevail over theirs through regulation?

I think BASE is too risky and I won't do it. Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to BASE jump?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 12, 2003, 8:47 AM
Post #70 of 289 (918 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>Or by doing hook turns, BASE jumps . . .

BASE jumps don't concern me, nor does driving drunk, or flying their airplanes through clouds, or doing coke. We're talking about skydiving at USPA sites here, nothing more.

>It's more of a statement about averages.

As I've mentioned, I don't believe people will intentionally (for example) decrease their exit separation if they are forced to pull at 2000 feet. You are making an assumption that simply has no basis in what we've seen in this sport. People who are educated survive longer in this sport; if your theory held, they would not, since they would simply increase their risk in other areas.

>>And there's the rub. I've seen us do nothing for five years now.
>>It's a mistake.

>How do you know?

All the dead people.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 12, 2003, 8:57 AM
Post #71 of 289 (919 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>I don't know how USPA arrived at 2000ft, but it seems as if
>some serious thought was given to it . . .

Which is a guess on your part.

>You can't say the same about the jump numbers in the BSR proposal
> discussed here, where the numbers ARE TOTALLY ARBITRARY . . .

Uh. no. They are based on the experiences of Brian Germain, a canopy designer and canopy flight coach. You may consider his judgement totally arbitrary, but I don't.

>and based on no measurements of average learning rates and no
> account is taken of differences between individuals' capacity to learn
> or canopy parameters other than area.

Just as the pull altitude does not take into account learning rates, opening speed of given equipment, training of the individual skydiver, his experience, the freefall speed (i.e. subterminal vs terminal) or any terrain issues. In other words, it's completely arbitrary. Yet it saves lives and I support it, and I suspect you do too - although you refuse to answer that question.

>IMO the proposal is well intentioned but ill conceived and needs
>more work before it is acceptable.

If the price of delay were not another dozen skydiver's lives I would agree; we could spend the time to make it perfect instead of reasonable.


Ron

Jun 12, 2003, 9:04 AM
Post #72 of 289 (917 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I came up with my numbers by:

A. Looking at the fatalities...It seems to me that most of the dead had under 500 jumps. Only one had 1500, and he was stoned. So it seems to me that 500 jumps is the largest group. And this seems only to be an issue with low time jumpers.

B. Brian Germain...He knows his stuff, and I respect him.

These numbers were not just pulled out of thin air. They are pulled from the accidents that I have seen over the last 10 years, and looking at the current trend in fatalities...I guess since I don't have a PHD they don't mean anything?

Ron


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 12, 2003, 9:33 AM
Post #73 of 289 (908 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I came up with my numbers by:

A. Looking at the fatalities...It seems to me that most of the dead had under 500 jumps. Only one had 1500, and he was stoned. So it seems to me that 500 jumps is the largest group. And this seems only to be an issue with low time jumpers.

B. Brian Germain...He knows his stuff, and I respect him.

These numbers were not just pulled out of thin air. They are pulled from the accidents that I have seen over the last 10 years, and looking at the current trend in fatalities...I guess since I don't have a PHD they don't mean anything?

Ron

Let's try again:

In a typical year 1 skydiver out of 1000 will die. We can only reduce that to zero by regulating skydiving out of existence. If that is not acceptable, then you have to define what level of risk is acceptable to you. And if someone else has a higher risk tolerance than you, why should your opinion prevail over theirs through regulation based on your or Brian's or Bill's risk tolerance?

I was undecided at first, but the more I think about it the more firmly I come down in the "education" rather than "regulation" camp, mostly because you folks haven't made a convincing case for why your numbers are the right numbers except to say that Brian knows his stuff, nor have you come up with any kind of implementation or enforcement plan.

PS 1212 jumps, Stiletto 150 @1.4


fundgh  (C 34140)

Jun 12, 2003, 3:52 PM
Post #74 of 289 (875 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I am a little torn, however, education and some regulation don't seem to be a bad call. Education alone doesn't cut it. Is there a standard that the educators are supposed to adhere to? I fly the canopy that was recommended by my instructor and DZO...

1.2 with 65 jumps


nathaniel

Jun 12, 2003, 5:17 PM
Post #75 of 289 (864 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
People who are educated survive longer in this sport; if your theory held, they would not, since they would simply increase their risk in other areas.

People who are educated may be more risk averse. or they may make better assessments about risk and underestimate their actual risks less often. That's not an argument for regulation anyway, it's an argument for education, and I am calling for education too.

Quote:
As I've mentioned, I don't believe people will intentionally (for example) decrease their exit separation if they are forced to pull at 2000 feet.

I agree that insufficient exit separation is not a popular risk among skydivers, and it's irrelevant to this discussion... straw-man alert.

The point is not that risk-deprived skydivers will do everything in their power at every opportunity to find a new way to die--although it may seem that way when people do stupid things. The point is that people have a risk budget and that by taking certain goods off the market you aren't changing the budget.

It's a simple ecnonomy. People undertake risk for pleasure. But risk isnt free...at some point the probabilities kick in and the pleasure goes away. I contend that we will never corner the market on risk. You can change the manifestation of risk-taking but you can't prevent it, and changing the manifestation incurs penalties.

Quote:
You are making an assumption that simply has no basis in what we've seen in this sport.

I agree that the basis of my claim isn't in skydiving, but that doesn't make it any less relevant. The basis is a descriptive approach to understanding human nature ie economics. Not Keynes or Greenspan, just basic risk + probability analysis.

That gives me an idea, tho...has already been proposed by others but not to the degree I have in mind--or maybe I just wasn't paying attention. Instead of relying on some obscure numerology to decide what is safe, how about strengthening the coaching system into a buddy system? Pair good jumpers with new ones, and emphasize long-term skydiving relationships. I know people do this on their own already to some extent already, esp in context of swooping... this approach is just screaming for USPA sponsorship.

Quote:
>How do you know?

All the dead people.

They told you? They didn't tell me. Sarcastic on the surface, but seriously I think this is core to our disagreement. How do you get from dead people to new BSRs?

I reiterate that the burden of proof is on the proposal, not on the status quo.

nathaniel


fundgh  (C 34140)

Jun 12, 2003, 5:26 PM
Post #76 of 289 (1224 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

My question for education is...On what level does it need to occur? Do instructors need education? How do you know that what they are teaching is appropriate? Not all instructors have the same philosophy on WL. Can we regulate the educators so that they promote greater safety?


nathaniel

Jun 12, 2003, 5:56 PM
Post #77 of 289 (1219 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fundgh] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Not all instructors have the same philosophy on WL.

imo diversity is good when people can respect their differences.

Quote:
Can we regulate the educators so that they promote greater safety?

The USPA already does this with coaches and instructors. I don't think we should roll this back...I think there are good ways it could be expanded without new BSRs.

We have the best higher education systems in the world in the US and I think it might be a consequence of the fact that we have relatively little legislative interference with the subjects taught. But I'm not really sure about this whole tangent and I'm not sure I'm that much interested in the study of education....

nathaniel


wmw999  (D 6296)

Jun 12, 2003, 6:06 PM
Post #78 of 289 (1214 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Not a response to nathaniel in particular, but one thing to consider in the education alone vs. education + regulation is that relying on education alone requires a higher level of either judgement or performance from everyone, without any need to prove it.

Education + regulation allows for less perfect behavior on the part of the participants. Some may say this is an awesome reason for sticking with education alone, but for the sake of the sport, as well as for friends, I'd rather not eliminate the lesser-judgemented and lesser-skilled quite as brutally all the time.

It can limit the very strongest canopy pilots. No doubt. But in the long run, there are a lot more mediocre canopy pilots that it will help, than superb canopy pilots who will now HAVE to take a class.

Wendy W.


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 12, 2003, 6:56 PM
Post #79 of 289 (1203 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

800 jumps. 1.56:1 wingload Stilleto 107.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 12, 2003, 8:46 PM
Post #80 of 289 (1191 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>That's not an argument for regulation anyway, it's an argument for
>education, and I am calling for education too.

As am I. Regulation is simply a tool to get people into education. Without it they will not go.

>I agree that insufficient exit separation is not a popular risk among
>skydivers, and it's irrelevant to this discussion... straw-man alert.

As you were the one who suggested skydivers will increase their risks in other ways if you decrease their risk in canopy flight . . . it's odd that you'd make an argument then call it a straw man. Which is it? Will skydivers increase their risk through other means (like group separation) if you decrease the risk of canopy flight through regulation, or is that completely irrelevant? If you claim it is irrelevant I will be happy to drop it.

>The point is that people have a risk budget and that by taking certain
>goods off the market you aren't changing the budget.

Again, I think that's nonsense. People who don't drink and drive don't drive less safe cars, or drive faster, to compensate. No skydiver I've ever met has started jumping a larger canopy then suddenly decided he should start doing big-ways he wasn't ready for. There is no "risk thermostat." There are levels of risk that each person is willing to take, but there is no mechanism whereby one category gets filled with risk when you deplete it from another category.

Economics textbooks are great for understanding economics. They're not so great for understanding skydiving.

>I agree that the basis of my claim isn't in skydiving, but that doesn't
>make it any less relevant.

As we are talking about skydiving, I'm afraid it does. National politics, economics, antibiotic resistance in bacteria etc are all interesting topics but do not neccessarily relate to skydiving.

>They told you? They didn't tell me.

Not worth a reply.


Ron

Jun 13, 2003, 5:05 AM
Post #81 of 289 (1177 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
That gives me an idea, tho...has already been proposed by others but not to the degree I have in mind--or
maybe I just wasn't paying attention. Instead of relying on some obscure numerology to decide what is safe,
how about strengthening the coaching system into a buddy system? Pair good jumpers with new ones, and
emphasize long-term skydiving relationships. I know people do this on their own already to some extent
already, esp in context of swooping... this approach is just screaming for USPA sponsorship.

Well, a large number of people do this, but there are not enough of us "old" guys to buddy up with every student.

How whould this get funded? Charge the student more? Expect guys like me to not do Tandems or coach so we can be your buddy?

I am one of the people that do spend time with new guys, but I am not a millionaire...so I can't jump with them all.

In reply to:
How do you get from dead people to new BSRs?

If you can't see this, you really need to sit down and think some. BSR's were written in blood. They were put into place to prevent more people doing the same stupid things that the guy who's crater you are standing in did.

Ron


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 13, 2003, 7:05 AM
Post #82 of 289 (1161 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>

>The point is that people have a risk budget and that by taking certain
>goods off the market you aren't changing the budget.

Again, I think that's nonsense. People who don't drink and drive don't drive less safe cars, or drive faster, to compensate. No skydiver I've ever met has started jumping a larger canopy then suddenly decided he should start doing big-ways he wasn't ready for. There is no "risk thermostat." There are levels of risk that each person is willing to take, but there is no mechanism whereby one category gets filled with risk when you deplete it from another category.
.

You may think it's nonsense, but there is a considerable body of psychology research on risk homeostasis that indicates that there IS a risk budget. See, for example, THIS.

and
THIS


(This post was edited by kallend on Jun 13, 2003, 7:24 AM)


rhino  (D 22500)

Jun 13, 2003, 7:09 AM
Post #83 of 289 (1158 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
requires a higher level of either judgement or performance from everyone

That speaks for ANYONE that survives in this sport.

Rhino


downwardspiral  (A License)

Jun 13, 2003, 10:10 AM
Post #84 of 289 (1134 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

You may think it's nonsense, but there is a considerable body of psychology research on risk homeostasis that indicates that there IS a risk budget.

Just some observations:

I ride my crotch rocket to and from work for a total of 20-25 minutes each way. Since I started riding(last November) I have noticed that the folks driving SUVs and large lifted 4x4 trucks tend to drive faster then folks in compact cars. Quite often I see a SUV mom with all her kids in her car passing me when I'm doing 80 mph. Is this not ridiculous?

Also they tend not to look over their shoulder when changing lanes...making them more likely to hit me if I'm not paying attention.

On the other hand... when I get in front of an SUV or large truck they will give me a wider birth by backing off then most compact cars. Perhaps this has to do with the size proportions of our vehicles and perception of the amount of risk involved.

As a new rider I realize how vulnerable I am. This makes me a better "driver" cause I'm much more focused and unwilling to get in an accident.

Many of my friends have been bugging me to get leathers. IF the theory of risk homeostasis is true then that means I will be less safe and more likely to get in an accident if I buy leathers(if I understand the theory correctly). BTW leathers are to protect you from the road not other drivers. Should I buy leathers?

JasonCrazy


evilivan  (D 100593)

Jun 13, 2003, 3:15 PM
Post #85 of 289 (1104 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

This may put me in the path of the flamethrower, but...

860ish jumps, 2.0 WL

I voted for education.


nathaniel

Jun 13, 2003, 5:27 PM
Post #86 of 289 (1082 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Regulation is simply a tool to get people into education. Without it they will not go.
They might not go at all if we regulate them poorly -- they might quit the USPA, or the sport altogether if we screw up too much / too often. Would this proposed BSR make people leave the USPA in droves? Probably not. Would the wing of your favorite Otter fail if we took out just one rivet?

Quote:
As you were the one who suggested skydivers will increase their risks in other ways if you decrease their risk in canopy flight . . . it's odd that you'd make an argument then call it a straw man. Which is it?
You missed the point again...the straw man is exit separation, not propensity to assume risks in general. Casting doubt on whether people would give up on exit separation in response to the proposed BSR does not cast doubt on my point--unless of course if you can cast doubt on all the other forms of risk taking that skydivers might take in response to the proposed BSR as well.

I'm not predicting which risks they will take, I am predicting that they will take additional risks. Neither am I predicting they will jump with helium balloons tied to their knees and elbows with vectran strings, or with fishtanks, or try land their wingsuits, etc. Just that they will have more room in their risk budget that they may choose to allocate, or not, at their discretion--not yours or mine.

Let's try again with the dead people. How do you get from dead people to CanuckInUSA's / DJan's proposed numbers instead of from dead people to my *nonsense* proposed numbers? aside: I screwed up and attributed them to Ron in a previous post...

How about my second set of "nonsense" proposed numbers
1.0 if < 1000 jumps
1.1 if < 1100 jumps
1.2 if < 1200 jumps
1.3 if < 1300 jumps
1.4 if < 1400 jumps
They're more subtle than my first set, don't you think?

Why don't we ban hook turns among low timers instead? How about requiring radios + landing coaching for all jumpers with < n * 100 jumps? Why doesn't the proposed BSR talk elliptical vs square vs round? Why don't we look for something other than jump #'s as a byword for canopy skill? Tying the proposal to USPA licenses seems slightly more rational to me than inventing another metric for experience.

By enumerating these proposals I'm not saying I would or would not support them; I'm just wondering what makes one idea better or worse to you than another.

If /this proposed wingload BSR means fewer deaths/ is an axiom to you, say so and let us move on instead of butting heads. To me that statement is a hypothesis. Since I can think of arguments both for and against it, I'm not convinced it's true.

nathaniel


nathaniel

Jun 13, 2003, 5:55 PM
Post #87 of 289 (1077 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Well, a large number of people do this, but there are not enough of us "old" guys to buddy up with every student.
If possible maybe the guys with more experience could buddy up with more than one student. Or maybe give it a little bit of hierarchy and let the older guys mentor the middle-aged guys, and have the middle-aged guys mentor the young guys, and have the young guys mentor the new guys...and when they ask a question you don't know the answer to or if they don't listen, ask your way up the tree. This is starting to sound awfully m/paternalistic, but I think it wouldn't have to be unbearable.

Quote:
How whould this get funded? Charge the student more? Expect guys like me to not do Tandems or coach so we can be your buddy?
Who says economics doesn't have anything to do with skydiving! Supply and demand, how do we reconcile them?

I dont think we should force anyone to be a mentor or a mentee...and those that choose to participate could set the terms of their relationship on their own. A meat market wasn't originally part of the idea.. but hey, sometimes things end up in ways you don't expect. I suppose we'd have to try to find out for sure, eh? I think we could discourage the Avon^Wevil capitalistic parts of it by encouraging the dispensation of gifts such as beer and pack jobs from mentees to mentors, or otherwise playing up the social aspects of the relationship.

Maybe the USPA could offer incentives to professional and non-professional experienced skydivers to mentor the new guys... maybe special awards like we see in the back of Parachutist when some number your mentees have all made a certain accomplishment. I think the number of people that consider Roger Nelson a mentor is testament to scale of his greatness (edit: present tense).

Maybe a new stratum of instructor licensing that confers something instructors want...or enables them to ask for top dollar from DZ's and gives DZ's something to advertise... Or the USPA could give incentives to participating DZs and let the DZOs figure out the details.

I don't know what you would want, you do! Tell me, then tell the USPA =)

nathaniel


(This post was edited by nathaniel on Jun 13, 2003, 6:04 PM)


rhino  (D 22500)

Jun 13, 2003, 6:05 PM
Post #88 of 289 (1069 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How about my second set of "nonsense" proposed numbers
1.0 if < 1000 jumps
1.1 if < 1100 jumps
1.2 if < 1200 jumps
1.3 if < 1300 jumps
1.4 if < 1400 jumps
They're more subtle than my first set, don't you think?

Limits like these will never work...

Rhino


okalb  (D 22854)

Jun 13, 2003, 6:53 PM
Post #89 of 289 (1058 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If possible maybe the guys with more experience could buddy up with more than one student. Or maybe give it a little bit of hierarchy and let the older guys mentor the middle-aged guys, and have the middle-aged guys mentor the young guys, and have the young guys mentor the new guys...and when they ask a question you don't know the answer to or if they don't listen, ask your way up the tree.

This would be great and goes along with the education part of things but once again it DOESN'T WORK. People have been mentoring other jumpers for years. The problem as I stated before is that most of the people who kill themselves under highly loaded canopies have already been spoken to on numerous occasions by more experienced jumpers.

There is no way to make someone listen when they think that they can handle it and the old timers are just too conservative or trying to keep them down. We have seen this attitude time and time again and right now all we can do is TRY to talk to them. If there was a regulation in place we could force them to listen at least until they have enough experience that they HOPEFULLY realize that they don't know everything and the people that are trying to talk to them might have been around a bit longer and seen what happens.

Some people have the attitude that we should just talk to them and if they don't listen than screw them and let them kill themselves, but I am more selfish than that. If I were only worried about them killing themselves, that would be fine. The problem is that I am worried about them killing ME!

Not to mention every death hurts us all no matter why they were killed. Once again, there is lots of potential good that can come from regulating this and NOBODY as of yet has been able to show any potential negatives. I'm sorry, but the argument about regulation opening a can of worms is bullshit. We have lots of regulations that we have accepted for years. Most of them we accept because they have been around since before a lot of us were jumping. This is no different other than the fact that we are around for it. I would rather see us regulate it ourselves with the help of the USPA than have the FAA get involved and tell us what to do.

Your other argument about people quitting the sport if we tell them what canopy they can jump also holds no water. If they think so little of the sport that they would quit over that, then we don't need them in our sport. Besides, that new jumpers coming into the sport would not have a problem with it since the reg would be in place before they got here. It would be just like the pull altitude BSR. Do you complain about pulling at whatever altitude you are supposed to pull at? No, because it has always been that way for you. I am sure that when they were deciding on those BSRs, there were plenty of people complaining about it just like people are now about this.

The people that seem to be making the most noise against a WL BSR are the ones with the lowest jump numbers. No offense to you Nathaniel, but with 88 jumps, I very highly doubt that you have been around long enough to see what some of us have seen. I am not saying that I have been around forever or seen it all. I only have 1400 jumps which is nothing, but I have seen a lot of people hurt or killed under wingloadings that they should not have been under.


nathaniel

Jun 13, 2003, 7:58 PM
Post #90 of 289 (1047 views)
Shortcut
Re: [okalb] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Oh I agree that people dying in skydiving accidents is bad. I'm questioning whether this new-BSR approach will do anything about it. What I've gotten so far is

* it will work but I can't explain how, trust me I know better than you
* regulation works because it educates people and education hasn't worked alone
* nothing else has worked so this will if anything will
* we have loads of other regs so what the heck

Well, I trust people better when they share with me. When they share their knowledge with me. And -- please do not construe this as a broad insult -- I wonder whether knowledge that can't be shared is knowledge at all. I don't consider broad assumptions as knowledge until I can appreciate what supports them. If this means I won't understand till I have more jumps, then don't bother responding for I won't understand.

I think #2 is the best of the lot, tho I'm even starting to wonder about it after I read through kallend's links. The links provide alternative solutions too, like providing incentives to not screwup, instead of disincentives to screwups. Sounds goody-goody at first, but who cares what it sounds like, I care whether it works.

Is it ethical to enact new regs when we don't know how we came up with them or what they'll do? Does the seriousness of the problem make it more or less ethical? Is there a real problem, or is the problem strictly in our perceptions? Is there a real problem we should expect to solve, or is the problem we are "solving" not the real one?

As you were wondering, I have seen with my own eyes people seriously injured in skydiving accidents, and skydiving friends of mine have perished. Under small canopies. I could not stop them, though I wish I could have.

Our hope should not displace our reason.

nathaniel


wmw999  (D 6296)

Jun 13, 2003, 8:13 PM
Post #91 of 289 (1045 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

People think they write one thing, and people read somethnig else.

What will a BSR do?

It will force jumpers with fewer jumps to either get more experience, or more education, before jumping a high-performance canopy at a high wingloading.

Experience is an excellent teacher; and a kinder one under a lighter wingloading. "force" might be a bad word, but it's exactly what the BSR will do. The reason education hasn't worked alone is because not everyone partakes.

A wingload BSR will not solve all problems. Nothing will. I've seen people hurt themselves landing rounds by turning too close to the grouns, too. But a wingload BSR will make every canopy pilot choose whether to get experience, education, or (preferably) both.

Wendy W.


cloud9  (D 27635)

Jun 13, 2003, 9:01 PM
Post #92 of 289 (1033 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Well I must confess I didn't think you all could change my mind on regulation but you have.
Now lets not stop with wing loading there is still work to do.
I think the BSR should also decree that anyone with less then 500 jumps should not be able to go head down. We have had several fatalities do to FF collisions that could be avoided. Maybe 200 belly jumps before any FF jumps.
Also how about 250 jumps before anything bigger then an 8 way RW and 500 before anything bigger then a 20 way. At least 100 jumps before any hoop dives or raft dives.
500 jumps before any boogies, them landing area's get crowded.
500 jumps on a square, then another 200 on a semi elliptical before going to a high performance main.
Mandatory AAD no doubt would save lives. RSL same same. No more mini risers to dangerous. Mandatory full face helmets couldn't hurt. Mandatory audible.
No jumping below 32 degree's hands just get to cold them big gloves are to bulky. Bright canopies only to avoid canopy collisions. Boots would save some of the foot injuries.

So where do you draw the line? Where does it end? More importantly who decides?


wmw999  (D 6296)

Jun 13, 2003, 9:23 PM
Post #93 of 289 (1026 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cloud9] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So where do you draw the line? Where does it end? More importantly who decides?

Well, actually, why do we even need a line? The FAA doesn't decree a minimum opening altitude, or instruction. We should just let folks find someone more experienced who's willing to take them up. The vast majority of people will do just fine that way.

If they need it, they'll seek out the instruction. We can encourage it, and hopefully most people will take the more expensive route of formal instruction, rather than the more fun one of just jumping to get experience.

Wendy W.


Fireflyer  (A 43955)

Jun 13, 2003, 9:54 PM
Post #94 of 289 (1018 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm just a baby:

6 jumps
0.90 WL!!!


downwardspiral  (A License)

Jun 13, 2003, 11:15 PM
Post #95 of 289 (1011 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Fireflyer] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

While reading in the April'03 issue of the Parachutist the article titled Heads Up! a 2002 fatality summary by Paul Sitter I found something curios... There was no mention of the experience level or jump numbers of the 13 who died during landing. Why is that? Is that not important? Maybe Paul Sitter can enlighten us.


okalb  (D 22854)

Jun 14, 2003, 3:58 AM
Post #96 of 289 (1000 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
In reply to:
People think they write one thing, and people read somethnig else.

What will a BSR do?

It will force jumpers with fewer jumps to either get more experience, or more education, before jumping a high-performance canopy at a high wingloading.

Experience is an excellent teacher; and a kinder one under a lighter wingloading. "force" might be a bad word, but it's exactly what the BSR will do. The reason education hasn't worked alone is because not everyone partakes.

A wingload BSR will not solve all problems. Nothing will. I've seen people hurt themselves landing rounds by turning too close to the grouns, too. But a wingload BSR will make every canopy pilot choose whether to get experience, education, or (preferably) both.

Wendy W.

Thank you.....someone finally gets it!

-OK


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 14, 2003, 3:58 AM
Post #97 of 289 (999 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cloud9] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm sorry you take this as a joke. As people are dying under good canopies, some of us take it rather seriously.

>So where do you draw the line?

If an activity does not cause dozens of fatalities a year, then people are dealing with that activity in a way that does not require we do anything new about it.

>Where does it end?

When we reduce the number of fatalities a year for the reason being "legislated" against.

>More importantly who decides?

We do.l


crazy  (D 23767)

Jun 14, 2003, 4:46 AM
Post #98 of 289 (993 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You may think it's nonsense, but there is a considerable body of psychology research on risk homeostasis that indicates that there IS a risk budget.
Is it a pure coincidence that "Open Canopy Fatalities and Cypres saves are almost mirror images of each other from 1994 to 1998, but offset by a year" [Vic Napier, Open Canopies Fatalities][Dave Holmes, The Science of Risk Taking]?
If the theory of risk compensation is nonsense, what are the plausible explanations? If there is no known plausible explanation, then the possibility of contra-intuitive and adverse effects of a wingload BSR should not be overlooked.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 14, 2003, 9:13 AM
Post #99 of 289 (976 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'm sorry you take this as a joke. As people are dying under good canopies, some of us take it rather seriously.

>So where do you draw the line?

If an activity does not cause dozens of fatalities a year, then people are dealing with that activity in a way that does not require we do anything new about it.

>Where does it end?

When we reduce the number of fatalities a year for the reason being "legislated" against.

>

Reduce it to what? At what level do they become acceptable? What is your objective? Less than a dozen - is that OK? Zero? If it's zero, then his proposal is not a joke and your's (Ron's, Brians) won't succeed because it's too generous. If it's more than zero, then your proposal is arbitrary because your numbers can't be correlated with the objective (which you haven't actually stated explicitly).

Why should you impose your risk tolerance on others in a sport like skydiving, where personal responsibility is the rule (or used to be)?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 15, 2003, 9:23 AM
Post #100 of 289 (970 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>Reduce it to what? At what level do they become acceptable? What is your objective?

To reverse the trend. We are unlikely to get fatalities to zero; letting them continue climbing also seems like a poor option. To turn the question around - at what point would _you_ agree to regulation? When one person a week dies under a good canopy? 2? 10? Or is any regulation at all unacceptable. no matter what effect it has on fatalities?

>Why should you impose your risk tolerance on others in a sport like
> skydiving, where personal responsibility is the rule (or used to be)?

It was my job for two years to do just that. The BSR's are an attempt to restrict the most dangerous of skydiving activities in an attempt to keep jumpers alive until they have the skills to do them safely. Night jumps, demos and being an AFF-JM are some examples of things you're not allowed to do until you have a certain number of jumps. Even though jump numbers do not always have a perfect correspondence to skill level, there is some relationship, which is why jump numbers are used for licenses and instructor ratings.

Yes, this is the evil USPA imposing their personal risk tolerance on everyone, thus making this an overregulated sport where personal responsibility is not tolerated blah blah. But I think history has shown that, for the most part, the BSR's have helped the sport more than hurt it.


Genn  (D 22590)

Jun 15, 2003, 10:27 AM
Post #101 of 289 (1193 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Education W/O Regulation.

WL 1.44 600+

I vote for no more regulation!!! All I hear from my friends are stories about the 'good old days'....and all I can think of is: "What is happening to our sport???"Frown


cloud9  (D 27635)

Jun 15, 2003, 7:03 PM
Post #102 of 289 (1169 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I truly hope no one took my post as a joke. Because everything I wrote I have heard skydivers say on the DZ. Just this weekend I heard a jumper saying after the tragic incident in Chicago all hook turns should be banned period. So who’s right? The folks that would restrict us to no hook turns? That would certainly save lives, but look at what we would loose.
If you really think a wing loading BSR is the answer start with your own DZ. If they won’t enforce one the what good would a new regulation do? Many people would just drop the USPA and then what? Jumpers would lie if there was a restriction is someone going to open every container and see what’s being jumped?
More importantly it won’t take into account the new technology in the sport. There are canopies out there right now that can and are jumped at 1.2 wing loading for novice jumpers. Also it’s like the elliptical issue Dan Preston was right here for well over a year trying to educate people on the subject but for the most part he was ridiculed. Now Aerodyne in saying the same thing amazing isn’t it. Some of the more docile canopies are more elliptical then some of the pocket rockets. And there is no such thing as semi elliptical, or slightly tapered that’s what all elliptical are there are no full elliptical canopies. But manufacturers have to make stuff up because of the perceptions of some instructors and that gets passed on, then we have a new generation of misinformed people.
I will say I have nothing but respect for the people concerned with saving lives in our sport. I just can’t agree that putting words on paper will change anything at all in that respect. But it will change jumpers opinions of the USPA and not for the better.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 16, 2003, 8:56 AM
Post #103 of 289 (1139 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cloud9] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

> Jumpers would lie if there was a restriction is someone going to
>open every container and see what’s being jumped?

No. Most experienced jumpers can tell wingloading by just looking at how a wing flies. And if there's any question - right after landing, his canopy is out there, and the size is written right there.

>are canopies out there right now that can and are jumped at 1.2
>wing loading for novice jumpers.

This attitude is killing a lot of jumpers. There have been NO CHANGES in the laws of physics or aerodynamics. Smaller canopies are less forgiving than larger ones; always have been. Jumper's bones are not any stronger than they were ten years ago.

The difference is that, in some places, education is better. There are now canopy control classes that can let you jump a 2:1 Stiletto after 100 jumps safely - if you're willing to put the time in. Student jumpers at Roger Nelson's place can jump smaller canopies sooner because they get excellent HP canopy training, not because the Sabre2 is as forgiving as a Manta. If you continue to try to do one without the other (downsizing without education) the fatalities will continue to increase.

So the only answer is more education. If there were any way at all to get education to those who need it the most (i.e. the ones who are sure they _don't_ need it) without regulation I'd be all for it. I have heard no such plan.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 16, 2003, 8:08 PM
Post #104 of 289 (1098 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
> Jumpers would lie if there was a restriction is someone going to
>open every container and see what’s being jumped?

No. Most experienced jumpers can tell wingloading by just looking at how a wing flies. And if there's any question - right after landing, his canopy is out there, and the size is written right there.

>are canopies out there right now that can and are jumped at 1.2
>wing loading for novice jumpers.

This attitude is killing a lot of jumpers. There have been NO CHANGES in the laws of physics or aerodynamics. Smaller canopies are less forgiving than larger ones; always have been. Jumper's bones are not any stronger than they were ten years ago.

The difference is that, in some places, education is better. There are now canopy control classes that can let you jump a 2:1 Stiletto after 100 jumps safely - if you're willing to put the time in. Student jumpers at Roger Nelson's place can jump smaller canopies sooner because they get excellent HP canopy training, not because the Sabre2 is as forgiving as a Manta. If you continue to try to do one without the other (downsizing without education) the fatalities will continue to increase.

So the only answer is more education. If there were any way at all to get education to those who need it the most (i.e. the ones who are sure they _don't_ need it) without regulation I'd be all for it. I have heard no such plan.

How about peer pressure. That's what seemed to get people to use AADs.


ifallout  (D 27068)

Jun 16, 2003, 8:37 PM
Post #105 of 289 (1092 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I have just over 200 jumps and my 135 Sabre is wingloaded at 1.2 to 1. I changed to the 135 from my 170 Sabre at about 180 jumps. I can picture jumping the 135 for several hundred jumps. I don't do, and have no intrest in, high performance landings. I do think that those that want to do them should get training and weigh the risks, then do what they want as long it does not put others at risk.

Our DZ has a seperate area for high performance landings, that seems to let them play and keeps others out of harms way, works for me.


rhino  (D 22500)

Jun 16, 2003, 8:40 PM
Post #106 of 289 (1100 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ifallout] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't do, and have no intrest in, high performance landings.

Good..

But..

Wait..

Until you are bitten by the bug...


ifallout  (D 27068)

Jun 16, 2003, 8:56 PM
Post #107 of 289 (1095 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Ok never say never I guess. But I know several people that have jumped way more than you or I and manage to land without doing high performance landings or jumping extreme wing loadings.

All bugs don't bite all people.

Don't get me wrong I love to watch them, a kick ass hook and a long swoop landing is sweet to watch, but I have seen them not work too and I think I will continue to pass.


mikkey  (D License)

Jun 17, 2003, 12:04 AM
Post #108 of 289 (1086 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Here is a quote from the incident forum where "skymick" is decribing his accident during a fun accuracy competition:

Quote:
im finally back from hospital after having a rod inserted in my L1 vertabrea and a bone graft from my hip.

Just to clarify a couple of things:

While the other guy did go low and was in my way he didnt cut me off but cause the other jumper was where i wanted to be and I was catching up to him I gave him a wide berth as I didnt want to cut him off but by that time I was too low and goin cross wind...I wish I knew why I had done the low turn...I just did it. Soon as I did it I knew i stuff up and started to flare but with not much luck.

I am able to walk, and sit without too much pain, just need to wear a brace for a few weeks which is a bit of a pain"


(I changed the key text to "bold"). As far as I know, Mick has about 250 jumps with about 100 the last 12 month and uses a Sabre 150 at 1.4 WL.

Now to my point:
It has been mentioned before in this discussion that we can not talk to the dead jumpers, well let's listen to the ones who survived.

Notice the " I fxxed up but I do not know why " part of the quote. We all f*ck up under canopy and we tend to f*ck up more - or have less skills to recover -when we have less jumps or / and less training.

The higher the WL (combined with type of canopy) the worse the consequences of a f*ck up. We can not run away from this fact.

So, IF you want to reduce fatalities under canopy you have to EITHER limit people in regard to what they jump OR you have to train them better. Now as "billvon" and others have pointed out - if you want people to get better skills you have to "force" them. Why do people complete training to achieve certain licenses? Because they then qualify to do certain things they like to do - you want to do display jumps, you train and you get a display license. Same should apply for canopy control.

The guys who are aginst any regulations and tell us that they are doing just fine with their canopy would have no problems passing this type of canopy control course to qualify for their personal WL.


Ron

Jun 17, 2003, 4:10 AM
Post #109 of 289 (1079 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mikkey] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Well how about this one...

I screwed up this weekend. Not bad, but I did screw up.
I was setting up for the pond, and got a little lift right when I started my hook. I did a little left, then a 180 right hook, and planned out a little low on the pond. While I was planning my "cool ass swoop" My right knee dug into the pond. No carnage, but lots of splash. I managed to stand the landing (running like hell mind you).

Now I have 2,900 jumps. I was on my Stiletto 107 loaded at 1.68. I also have close to 1,700 jumps on a Stiletto 107. And several hundered on smaller canopies (69,88,96 Xbraced, 93,97 conventional)

Yet I still managed to make a mistake...Cool huh?


markbaur  (D 6108)

Jun 17, 2003, 4:48 AM
Post #110 of 289 (1073 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Part of the problem with peer pressure not working is that folks who should be role models set bad examples. Putting a swoop pond close to the spectator and packing area says "Cool people swoop; the coolest swoop the most." Every time someone swoops that pond, he or she encourages less experienced jumpers to try it, too. How about moving swoop courses to the far side of the landing area, or to some place out of sight, like behind the hangar? It's time for leaders in our sport to recognize the part they are playing, to change their own behavior, and to lead by example.

Mark


Ron

Jun 17, 2003, 5:15 AM
Post #111 of 289 (1071 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Part of the problem with peer pressure not working is that folks who should be role models set bad examples.

Is it bad example for me to whip a 540 degree turn while doing relative work?

Is it a bad example for me to swoop right to my slot?

Is it a bad example for freefliers to show their work at the bar? I think it looks cool, but I am not about to try it. I don't have the skill that they do.

The biggest problem is that the new guys want to be like the guys that swoop the pond, but are unwilling to listen to how we got where we are...they want to take the mythical "short cut". They think that if they get the same or better canopy that I have they can do what I do or better.

Because it has to be the canopy that lets guys get good swoops..It can't possibly be skill and experience.

Why is it that the word experience is a bad word?

Don't do the things you see guys doing if they have more experience than you. If they tell you not to do it...Listen to them and don't do it.

There is the big problem...I see guys do stunts on motorcycles all the time...I don't do them because I don't have the skill or experience to do them.

These new guys should not pick canopies based on ego.
Thats the issue.

There will always be guys with the skills and experience to do cool things...the trick is to realize that just because they can do it, does not mean that you can.

Ron


rainman  (D License)

Jun 17, 2003, 5:18 AM
Post #112 of 289 (1070 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I feel that the people most at risk due to their choice of wingloading are the ones that won't take education if its optional. So I think regulation is called for.

I have 119 jumps, WL 1.10


alain  (C 97601)

Jun 17, 2003, 5:52 AM
Post #113 of 289 (1064 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I'd say more education, because it's not only high wingloading that kills (far from it)
I guess that better education would help people to understand what wingload is good for them, and what they can achive and should be able to do on a given canopy before considering anything more radical.

me: 450 jumps , 1,35:1
(not planing anything faster for the next 100-150 jumps...)


base698  (D 23456)

Jun 17, 2003, 6:25 AM
Post #114 of 289 (1057 views)
Shortcut
Re: [alain] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

reg+ed

909 jumps @ 2:1 (150 jumps at that wingload)


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 17, 2003, 7:55 AM
Post #115 of 289 (1030 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ifallout] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Ok never say never I guess. But I know several people that have jumped way more than you or I and manage to land without doing high performance landings or jumping extreme wing loadings.

All bugs don't bite all people.

Don't get me wrong I love to watch them, a kick ass hook and a long swoop landing is sweet to watch, but I have seen them not work too and I think I will continue to pass.

Absolutely. I watched the Red Bull swoop contest at SDC on Friday, but I have no desire to emulate them. I like straight in landings just fine, thank you.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 17, 2003, 8:35 AM
Post #116 of 289 (1016 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>How about peer pressure. That's what seemed to get people to use AADs.

That would be great if it worked. So far it hasn't.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 17, 2003, 11:07 AM
Post #117 of 289 (990 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>How about peer pressure. That's what seemed to get people to use AADs.

That would be great if it worked. So far it hasn't.

That's because right now the peer pressure is in the wrong direction.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 17, 2003, 12:01 PM
Post #118 of 289 (983 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>That's because right now the peer pressure is in the wrong direction.

I agree; hence the need for an alternative method of achieving the desired result (fewer good-canopy fatalities.)


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 17, 2003, 12:03 PM
Post #119 of 289 (982 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Reduce it to what? At what level do they become acceptable? What is your objective?

To reverse the trend. We are unlikely to get fatalities to zero; letting them continue climbing also seems like a poor option. To turn the question around - at what point would _you_ agree to regulation? When one person a week dies under a good canopy? 2? 10? Or is any regulation at all unacceptable. no matter what effect it has on fatalities?

for this we HAVE to look at the increase in number of jumps & number of people making jumps..is one per week to much?? 52 per year? perhaps, perhaps when 10,000 jumps per week are happening, what about if its 20,000? How do you balance the fact that with increased popularity and participation, your also going to have increased accidents and a higher percentage of “Darwin candidates” as well?

if dropzones start making double the number of jumps i would expect (all other things staying the same, as if they ever do) that the number of fatalities would MORE than double..if we are going to assign numbers like this you really HAVE to look at total numbers, and compare the number of incidents/injuries to other activities as well, to determine what a particular 'sport culture' will bear..

skydiving is by definition a very high risk sport. I would imagine its acceptable accident rate would be higher than say ‘less dangerous’ sports such as.....horseback riding??

yes there is a reason i chose that one..look up its accident/fatality numbers and tell me WE still have a problem, in comparison to more 'tame' activities.

i realize this is an emotionally charged issue, and every body in such a small sport has perhaps a more significant impact because of the close knit nature of the skydiving community... but we certainly need more and better documented numbers about all aspects of skydiving and any increase in fatality/injury raters before making any arbitrary regulatory decisions..

also: to make the ‘unofficial’ poll numbers more meaningful, perhaps everyone should also list their age & # of outside responsibilities.. I think there we be just as much correlation there as the ‘old timers’ find between low jump numbers and those not wanting regulation.

Some people ‘design’ there lives to accept higher levels of risk by limiting outside responsibilities. Everyone should look at their personal reasons for their own risk level and realize that not everyone else has the same reasons for deciding what is acceptable and what qualifies as “those insane F$#^$rs over there”. Living to be 80 isnt everyone’s goal in life..


Just because you have no desire to try something someone else finds joy (and danger) in is no reason to impose your more conservative mandates on them..

maybe we just need another waiver for HP canopy / high WL’s for everyone who wants to take that risk, then no one can whine about “I didn’t know the danger..”.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 17, 2003, 12:31 PM
Post #120 of 289 (965 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>Some people ‘design’ there lives to accept higher levels of risk by
>limiting outside responsibilities. Everyone should look at their
> personal reasons for their own risk level and realize that not
> everyone else has the same reasons for deciding what is acceptable
> and what qualifies as “those insane F$#^$rs over there”.

Of course, and no one is saying that you should not be able to pull at 250 feet, or drink and jump, or jump a 2 to 1 loaded canopy at 35 jumps. You just can't do it at a USPA DZ (the first two due to current BSR's, the third under this new proposal.)

I think you should have a right to do whatever you want provided you don't hurt anyone else. But if you want to use someone else's stuff to do it (airplanes, representation to the FAA, training programs etc) expect a few restrictions.

>Just because you have no desire to try something someone else
> finds joy (and danger) in is no reason to impose your more
> conservative mandates on them.

In my case the opposite is true. I like BASE jumping; I've pulled as low as 200 feet during a BASE jump. Back when I was an S+TA I would ground someone for pulling at 500. Not because I don't like pulling low (I actually do) but because, at a USPA drop zone, we have different - and higher - standards of safety than we have at an unregulated bridge.

>maybe we just need another waiver for HP canopy / high WL’s for
> everyone who wants to take that risk, then no one can whine
> about “I didn’t know the danger..”.

There is such a message on the back of every canopy, and in the waiver the DZ. A new waiver will get as much attention as those other messages get i.e. none.


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 17, 2003, 12:44 PM
Post #121 of 289 (962 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

so you are of the opinion then that the USPA should be for "skydivers who dont like taking risks or anyone taking risks around them"?

the USPA need to take into account that its members (or a good portion of them at least) WANT to be able to risk their lives under HP canopies without arbitrary jump number restrictions..promote education (offer discounts to DZs that have Canopy control courses, offer discounted jump tickets to jumpers who takes them..etc) without continuing the trend to 'legistate risk" out of everyones lives..

if the waivers are ignored now then why are you advocating MORE USELESS pieces of paper??? why dont people understand that there are obviously individuals out there that feel the risks are perfectly acceptible?? even with a high % chance of death?

why cant we let "the people whos stuff your using to to it" ie : the DZOs & ST&A'sdecide what risks they let their jumpers (and source of income dead jumpers dont buy jump tickets) take is too much?? why the push for over reaching control?? why not develop a program that ENCOURAGES DZs to provide canopy control classes for those who wish them? seems like all the manufacturers would also be interested in encouraging a program that would help them sell canopies too. (price discounts for those with canopy 'ratings'?? I think there are lots more methods that should be used to encourage canopy knowledge BEFORE we step in and start making abitrary regulations..

those who dont can continue to pound in..eventually the message will get out, and for those who stilll miss it..oh well....IGNORANCE IS PAINFUL ..didnt you read your waiver???


(This post was edited by Zenister on Jun 17, 2003, 12:51 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 17, 2003, 12:58 PM
Post #122 of 289 (948 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>so are of the opinion then that the USPA should be for "skydivers
>who dont like taking risks or anyone taking risks around them"?

USPA is for jumpers who support basic safety regulations, yes. That translates to taking less risks than you otherwise could. At a USPA drop zone you can't pull at 500 feet, even if you freely choose to take the risk of doing so.

>if the waivers are ignored now then why are you advocating MORE
>USELESS pieces of paper???

No pieces of paper. Just a rule that will help keep newer jumpers alive until they can make better decisions. Just as the 2000 foot rule requires no new paper, but keeps people alive.

>why dont people understand that there are obviously individuals
>out there that feel the risks are perfectly acceptible?? even with i
>high % chance of death?

There must be. I've never met one. We can't ask the dead, but of the dozen or so serious injuries that Jack Gramley dealt with while he was manager at Perris, not a single one said "I accepted that this could happen due to my experience level." They all said "I thought I could handle it."

So I'm sure there are individuals out there that truly understand the risks and accept them. From all evidence I've seen they are greatly in the minority. The vast majority of those injured simply did not understand the risk and/or overestimated their own skill.

> why not develop a program that ENCOURAGES DZs to provide
>canopy control classes for those who wish them? seems like all
>the manufacturers would also be interested in encouraging a
>program that would help them sell canopies too. (price discounts for
> those with canopy 'ratings'??

Now that's a good idea! If I saw programs like that being pushed I'd be a lot more prone to say "let's see if that fixes it." Of course, if only a few canopy mfrs did it it would be useless; the jumper would just buy the cheaper Xaos than the more expensive Velocity (assuming PD used such an incentive and Icarus did not.) Perhaps PIA could be of some assistance here.

>I think there are lots more methods that should be used to
>encourage canopy knowledge BEFORE we step in and start making
> abitrary regulations..

I would tend to agree, and the moment I see one of those programs get off the ground I will stop pushing for new regulation.


crewkeith  (B 24861)

Jun 17, 2003, 6:57 PM
Post #123 of 289 (903 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

430 jumps 1.45 wingload new canopy at home wingload 1.6 not ready yet




.


nathaniel

Jun 17, 2003, 7:15 PM
Post #124 of 289 (900 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
of the dozen or so serious injuries that Jack Gramley dealt with while he was manager at Perris, not a single one said "I accepted that this could happen due to my experience level." They all said "I thought I could handle it."

Well now, that isn't a biased sample, is it?

Betting it all on a straight flush to a 10 and losing to a straight flush to a queen sux too. That it happens from time to time doesn't automatically make betting it all on a straight flush to a 10 a bad idea. That's a (edit: an -- gosh I'm an idiot) example--not a direct analogy, for the risk of hurting oneself with a high WL is probably greater than losing with a straight flush to a 10...but there's a point underneath there that it isn't clear everybody understands...

Accepting a level of risk is accepting a set of possibilities with a probability distribution. It doesn't mean you'll be satisfied with every possible outcome...when you talk about risk it often means that some of the outcomes are undesirable... Reducing the undesirable outcomes to the unavoidable or the unforseeable is a lofty goal--for the risk averse. It is not necessarily the goal of rational, educated, etc risk-accepting individuals.

I put myself in the category of risk-averse...but I don't think it's right to extend my risk aversity into the lives of others -- except when other people's decisions endanger me of course...

nathaniel


(This post was edited by nathaniel on Jun 17, 2003, 8:43 PM)


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 17, 2003, 8:14 PM
Post #125 of 289 (887 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cloud9] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I truly hope no one took my post as a joke. Because everything I wrote I have heard skydivers say on the DZ. Just this weekend I heard a jumper saying after the tragic incident in Chicago all hook turns should be banned period. So who’s right?

A better decision to prevent canopy collisions is to never have another canopy in the air at the same time as you. So, since we know it always takes two for a collision to happen we should just ban all aircraft that carry more than one jumper at a time. Right? It's not the hook turn, it's the collision hazard. But we all know that is impractical and not going to happen. So how do we prevent people from colliding in this case? That's the question we are trying to answer. We know the geni is out of the bottle and high performance landings will never go away.

To those that believe everyone should be able to do whatever they want without regulation: We live in a society of rules. They exist mostly because people have been shown to not be able to control their actions. Remember, this wingload BSR is not to say you can NEVER be able to fly certain wingloadings. It is to say that there needs to be a graduated progression towards heavier wingloadings. Teenagers in many states now have to go through a graduated program when they get their driver's license. As a society we recognize that the world we live in is NOT the same as in the 50s and 60s. There needs to be certain guidelines to keep teens alive while they learn and mature. The canopies we fly now are nothing like what we (skydivers) flew in the 70s and 80s. We must recognize that the world has changed and that there may need to be a graduated progression for the PRIVILEGE of flying certain canopies. Remember, skydiving is not required for normal living. It IS a privilege. Since many have spoiled it for the rest and many of us are tired of seeing broken bodies on the ground and going to funerals and memorials I say we do need a graduated program for wingloading.


nathaniel

Jun 17, 2003, 8:50 PM
Post #126 of 289 (979 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Since many have spoiled it for the rest and many of us are tired of seeing broken bodies on the ground and going to funerals and memorials I say we do need a graduated program for wingloading.

Do we repeal the rule when the name numbers (roughly proportional to the number of active jumpers) wind up dead due to other kinds of skydiving accidents?

If no, why not? I'm genuinely curious for opinions--I think it's a question of assumptions we make.

nathaniel


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 17, 2003, 8:58 PM
Post #127 of 289 (977 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Do we repeal the rule when the name numbers (roughly proportional to the number of active jumpers) wind up dead due to other kinds of skydiving accidents?

If no, why not? I'm genuinely curious for opinions--I think it's a question of assumptions we make.

nathaniel

We won't because why would we? Does the issue go away? Just because the numbers go down doesn't mean we have learned really. Just means the rule had an effect. We haven't repealed pull altitude but the number of fatalities per number of jumps made has gone down. Why not repeal that rule since it isn't as high a percentage of fatalities anymore? Because we see the rule as necessary as a good guideline. Why are we going to 500 jumps for a "D" license? Because we seem to recognize that things have changed and that the maturing process that once came with 200 jumps is just not the same anymore. There is more to learn and you can make 200 jumps in the first year of your skydiving career like it's nothing (money permitting). Many on here have said that time in sport is just as important as jump numbers. So, by increasing the amount of jumps necessary to qualify for certain privileges makes you spend more time in the sport. This, as I see it, is a good thing.


Amazon  (D License)

Jun 17, 2003, 9:55 PM
Post #128 of 289 (968 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Wingload

Main 1.2
Reserve 1.08

Just a few over 500 jumps and just back into the sport after a 22 year layoff. 60+ jumps since mid March

I see NO good reason whatsoever to tempt fate with a VERY small cool looking rig that contains a hankie for a reserve. My brand new Infinity looks just great with my big ole reserve sittin there waiting.... should I need itCool

Its not about canopy skills as far as I am concerned. its about not being able to fly it for some reason. If I am unconscious or injured I like knowing I have something that will save my life with a minimum of effort on my part.



Amazon


(This post was edited by Amazon on Jun 17, 2003, 9:59 PM)


tlshealy  (D 8142)

Jun 18, 2003, 2:48 AM
Post #129 of 289 (956 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

When I first started Jumping, ram air canopies were just becoming popular and we had to have a 100 jumps before we jumped one, no one told the DZO that he had to make that rule, these new canopies were more dangerous than rounds and we just accepted that it took some time and training to learn to fly one. Today the equipment and training is so far advanced from those days and the students learn so quickly, we just assume they'll be ok when they move up to HP canopies. I,m afraid that if we don't regulate ourselves, someone else will do it for us. Landing accidents and canopy collisions on highly loaded canopies are becoming our dirty little secret in skydiving and i'm afraid someday a lawyer is going to figure that out and convince a jury that a DZO or instructor or canopy manufacturer is negligent in court. Then it may be too late for self regulation.
1385 jumps 1.3 wingload, Regulation and education.
Tad


Ron

Jun 18, 2003, 4:47 AM
Post #130 of 289 (948 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
f dropzones start making double the number of jumps i would expect (all other things staying the same, as if they
ever do) that the number of fatalities would MORE than double..if we are going to assign numbers like this you really
HAVE to look at total numbers, and compare the number of incidents/injuries to other activities as well, to determine
what a particular 'sport culture' will bear..

Well how about this.....

Would you say that more jumps are made every year than the last?

The raw fatalities stay about the same.

But there is one CLASS of fatalities that grows, and takes a larger and larger share of the whole.

That class is people flying HP canopies into the ground.
The reason is lack of knowledge, and skills.

Knowledge can be taught, but without experience will not give you skill.

The problem is people without the skills don't have experience to know they don't. They all think they are the "one" the person that is "gifted"...

They are also the group that is being broken the most.

Education would be great, but it is not/has not/will not work unless it is made manditory, and is a program that is the same quality at EVERY DZ. Now the USPA can't even get the ISP done at all the DZ's....See the problem with just education?

Just doing nothing is not an option. Liability in the US is to great...I know of one guy that stiffed the hospital for 107,000.00 Who pays that? We do.

Regulation will work...It will prevent the yahoo with 200 jumps from getting something that he does not know enough about. If he wants to go past this wingload, he can...He just has to take some time to do it, and PROVE he can handle it...Whats the problem with that?

Ron


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Jun 18, 2003, 5:12 AM
Post #131 of 289 (942 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Do you think that the number of jumps is a good regulation??? I hade 108 jumps in 3 years. Do you think it will qualify me to jump with HP canopies if I would have 400 jumps in 12 years? I dont think so. You should know your capabilites and handicaps and respect other opinion too. Check the manufacturers recommendation for those HP canopies. They have better "rules". Dont you feel quilty if some crash but he was allowed to use his gear by the rule approved by you?

Education without regulation.

Safe landings


okalb  (D 22854)

Jun 18, 2003, 5:32 AM
Post #132 of 289 (936 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Do you think that the number of jumps is a good regulation??? I hade 108 jumps in 3 years. Do you think it will qualify me to jump with HP canopies if I would have 400 jumps in 12 years?

A very good point except for one thing. If you had 400 jumps over 12 years, at least you would have been in the sport for 12 years. Time in the sport is experience in itself. Hopefully someone who has been in the sport for 12 years would have seen enough to know that they shouldn't jump that HP canopy.

Jump numbers are not the perfect solution, but neither is anything else and they are the best we have. We use jump numbers as a qualification for lots of things in the sport. None of them are perfect, but we have accepted them as the best we can do.

-OK


(This post was edited by okalb on Jun 18, 2003, 6:03 AM)


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Jun 18, 2003, 5:54 AM
Post #133 of 289 (932 views)
Shortcut
Re: [okalb] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

If you noticed number of jumps is nothing. You can mesaure of your current competence by total number of jump, jump in last 6 and 12 month and the gear you used with design & WL. Im sure that someone would be capable to fly with a HP over 1.4 WL in 6 month with 400 jumps. IMHO it shouldnt be any general rule. Listen to your mentor, know your limits.

Safe landings.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 18, 2003, 6:48 AM
Post #134 of 289 (919 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

> hade 108 jumps in 3 years. Do you think it will qualify me to jump
>with HP canopies if I would have 400 jumps in 12 years?

You will be more qualified than if you had made 90 jumps in 12 years.

>Check the manufacturers recommendation for those HP canopies.
>They have better "rules". Dont you feel quilty if some crash but he
>was allowed to use his gear by the rule approved by you?

No. We're not talking about a rule that says "once you have 400 jumps you are qualified to jump a 1.4 to 1 canopy." We're talking about a rule that says "unless you get education, you have to wait until you have at LEAST 400 jumps."

It's like the pull altitude. 2000 feet is the minimum. If a tandem pulls at 2000 feet, has a problem and goes in, I don't feel any guilt. The 2000 foot rule does not say "it's always safe to pull at 2000 feet" - it says "2000 feet is the _lowest_ you can pull; pull at or above this altitude."


Ron

Jun 18, 2003, 8:40 AM
Post #135 of 289 (897 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Do you think that the number of jumps is a good regulation???

Do you have a better plan? We already use raw jump #'s for several other permissions (CRW, Pull altitudes, Night jumps...ect)

Its simple, and works...

In reply to:
I hade 108 jumps in 3 years. Do you think it
will qualify me to jump with HP canopies if I would have 400 jumps in 12 years?

Nope, but HE would be safer if he had 400 jumps than if he had 200.

In reply to:
You should
know your capabilites and handicaps and respect other opinion too.

The problem is not ME knowing my capabilities....It is with THEM NOT knowing theirs. And how are the going to know? They don't have the experience to know.

In reply to:
Dont you feel quilty if some crash but he
was allowed to use his gear by the rule approved by you?

Better to ask do I feel guilty if I don't do anything to reverse the trend that I see? If they smack in under a lower wingload..chances are they would have smacked in at a higher wingload as well.

In reply to:
Safe landings

I am trying to make them safe for everyone. Even the ones that don't know they are in danger.

Ron


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Jun 18, 2003, 9:10 AM
Post #136 of 289 (883 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Do you have a better plan? We already use raw jump #'s for several other permissions (CRW, Pull altitudes, Night jumps...ect)

Its simple, and works...
How can you say that? You dont know what would be without that.

In reply to:
The problem is not ME knowing my capabilities....It is with THEM NOT knowing theirs. And how are the going to know? They don't have the experience to know.
And why do you think that you do have?

In reply to:
Better to ask do I feel guilty if I don't do anything to reverse the trend that I see? If they smack in under a lower wingload..chances are they would have smacked in at a higher wingload as well.
I don`t think so. On some level it safer if you dont feel yourself safe. If you feel more danger than usual, you will follow the rules e.g. you wont make "demo" landing with canopy you dont realy know. Most of the time thats not a WL problem, just a general pilot problem.

On the other hand theres the responsibility of that person who is selling or renting those equipments.

I know a case that someone could bought a small, higy WL, highly eliptical canopy with # of jumps under 200. He told the dealer if he is not willing to sell that gear some other willl. He ate the dirt in some other country in front of his fiends making a breaked hook turn landing.

In reply to:
In reply to:
Safe landings

I am trying to make them safe for everyone. Even the ones that don't know they are in danger.

Ron
:) It was just some kindda signiture :).

Safe landings


markbaur  (D 6108)

Jun 18, 2003, 9:12 AM
Post #137 of 289 (883 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
We already use raw jump #'s for several other permissions (CRW, Pull altitudes, Night jumps...etc)

Not quite. We have recommended numbers for CRW, water, night, and high altitude jumps.

We do have required minimum pull altitudes, but a calculated case can be made for these, based on opening time and reaction time.

If you would like the USPA to make "official" WL and other canopy recommendations (in SIM Section 6), I'd be all for that. But you still need to reveal the calculations (in terms of speed and reaction times) you use to arrive at your proposed regulation.

Mark


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 18, 2003, 9:38 AM
Post #138 of 289 (873 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Do you think that the number of jumps is a good regulation???

Do you have a better plan? We already use raw jump #'s for several other permissions (CRW, Pull altitudes, Night jumps...ect)

negative. Jump numbers are just part of the permission - demonstration of skill and passing the written test are also required. It's unclear to me what role jump numbers play in the acquisition of skills. I mean, if that's all there was, you'd give gold medals in 4-way to the team with the most total jumps and you wouldn't have to go to the bother of getting judges and jump planes.


Ron

Jun 18, 2003, 9:44 AM
Post #139 of 289 (868 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Jump numbers are just part of the permission - demonstration of skill and passing the written test
are also required.

Ok so make it jump #'s PLUS a test and a skill set (Which we are all saying we should have.)

So it fits quite nicley in with the norm huh?

Ron


(This post was edited by Ron on Jun 18, 2003, 9:52 AM)


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Jun 18, 2003, 9:47 AM
Post #140 of 289 (865 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Jump numbers are just part of the permission - demonstration of skill and passing the written test are also required.

Wow! Getting better! And what would you put in the written test?

Safe landings


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Jun 18, 2003, 9:48 AM
Post #141 of 289 (872 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

What is a kill set?


CanuckInUSA  (D 26396)

Jun 18, 2003, 9:50 AM
Post #142 of 289 (870 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What is a kill set?

LOL ... I can't believe I'm about to defend Ron. Shocked He meant skill set.


Ron

Jun 18, 2003, 9:51 AM
Post #143 of 289 (868 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If you would like the USPA to make "official" WL and other canopy recommendations (in SIM Section 6), I'd
be all for that. But you still need to reveal the calculations (in terms of speed and reaction times) you use to
arrive at your proposed regulation.

Speed...Too many low timers are hooking it in.
Reaction times...They are not hooking it in.

If you have better ideas..By all means tell me.

But don't just sit and pigeon hole my idea...Help make things better, don't just sit and bitch.

Can you not see a problem with low timers getting canopies and killing themselves?

How would you fix it?

Ron


Ron

Jun 18, 2003, 9:53 AM
Post #144 of 289 (864 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What is a kill set?

Its what low timers are using now...
You see they think they have the SKILL set...But they die.

Its called a typo.
Ron


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Jun 18, 2003, 9:55 AM
Post #145 of 289 (862 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Is it better to save and let them die in traffic accident or cancer? Let them die young! Let the natural selection rule the world!

Safe landings


Ron

Jun 18, 2003, 9:57 AM
Post #146 of 289 (856 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How can you say that?

Simple it has worked this far.

In reply to:
And why do you think that you do have?

Its called EXPERIENCE..I have almost 10 years and 3,000 jumps on wingloads from student to 2.8 to 1. And I have seen several 300 jump wonders die from letting their egos pick canopies.

In reply to:
I don`t think so. On some level it safer if you dont feel yourself safe. If you feel more danger than usual, you
will follow the rules e.g. you wont make "demo" landing with canopy you dont realy know. Most of the time
thats not a WL problem, just a general pilot problem.

Then why did the USPA create a PRO rating? Because people don't know what they can do, and often find out AFTER they screw up.

In reply to:
I know a case that someone could bought a small, higy WL, highly eliptical canopy with # of jumps under
200. He told the dealer if he is not willing to sell that gear some other willl. He ate the dirt in some other
country in front of his fiends making a breaked hook turn landing.

And with this regulation...he would not have been able to jump it even if he could buy it.

Ron


Ron

Jun 18, 2003, 9:59 AM
Post #147 of 289 (855 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Is it better to save and let them die in traffic accident or cancer? Let them die young! Let the natural
selection rule the world!

I can't believe you said that...

How obtuse to think that them getting hurt/killed just effects them.

Im done with you

Ron


CanuckInUSA  (D 26396)

Jun 18, 2003, 10:02 AM
Post #148 of 289 (852 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Is it better to save and let them die in traffic accident or cancer? Let them die young! Let the natural selection rule the world!

Safe landings

I am by no means a canopy nazi. But the problem with this sort of thinking is that by letting people die (natural selection as you say) we are giving a bad name to our sport. Everytime the whuffo news reports to the whuffo public that a skydiver has died, then the whuffo public thinks more negative thoughts about us and our sport. If we can prevent a few of the lesser experienced jumpers from jumping in conditions (and this includes flying a canopy) that they are not ready for, then the less the whuffo public will hear about our sport and the more we can go on not worrying about drastic legislation.

I am all for education and not all that kean on specific jump number regulation. But we do need to do something to prevent people from dying (or messing themselves up) under canopies which they are not ready for. Education and threads like this have prevented me from downsizing this summer.


(This post was edited by CanuckInUSA on Jun 18, 2003, 10:13 AM)


Blahr

Jun 18, 2003, 10:02 AM
Post #149 of 289 (851 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

1:1 wingload with 68 jumps


I wouldnt mind regulation on this issue as long as its other skydivers doing the regulating. They have the best interest of the sport in mind.
I take guidance all the time from more experienced jumpers.

I was not allowed to freefall until my instructor knew that I could open my own parachute.
I didnt mind this. The rules were for my own safety. They were not going to allow me to do something before I was ready for it.
Why should canopy flight be any different? Its just as hazardous to your health (and the health of others) to fly a canopy thats too hot to handle.

As long as you pose a possible risk to ME flying your HP canopy, I'd prefer some kind of regulation that keeps you from doing it before you are ready.

I was not allowed to determine for myself when I was ready to freefall on my own. That decision was left to the more experienced jumpers.
My license doesnt suddenly give me the right to do whatever I want because the bad decisions I might make can hurt other people too.

Is driving under the influence a crime because you might hurt yourself? No. Its a crime because you might hurt someone else that has nothing to do with it.

Chris


(This post was edited by Blahr on Jun 18, 2003, 10:22 AM)


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Jun 18, 2003, 10:13 AM
Post #150 of 289 (842 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I know a case that someone could bought a small, higy WL, highly eliptical canopy with # of jumps under
200. He told the dealer if he is not willing to sell that gear some other willl. He ate the dirt in some other
country in front of his fiends making a breaked hook turn landing.

And with this regulation...he would not have been able to jump it even if he could buy it.
You cant stop them got killed by human stupidity.
I know if you dont want USPA rules be applied on you - you can easily find other places..........

Safe landings


Ron

Jun 18, 2003, 10:17 AM
Post #151 of 289 (1119 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I know if you dont want USPA rules be applied on you - you can easily find other places..........

OK..so? I can't stop people from shooting themselves in the head either.

But I can TRY...I can listen to them when they have problems, I can not hand them my weapon to use even if they want it.
Ron


mikkey  (D License)

Jun 18, 2003, 6:41 PM
Post #152 of 289 (1085 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Is it better to save and let them die in traffic accident or cancer? Let them die young! Let the natural selection rule the world!

Safe landings

You are a fucking Troll. Go away.


markbaur  (D 6108)

Jun 18, 2003, 8:04 PM
Post #153 of 289 (1068 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
In reply to:
We already use raw jump #'s for several other permissions (CRW, Pull altitudes, Night jumps...etc)
Not quite. We have recommended numbers for CRW, water, night, and high altitude jumps.

We do have required minimum pull altitudes, but a calculated case can be made for these, based on opening time and reaction time.

If you would like the USPA to make "official" WL and other canopy recommendations (in SIM Section 6), I'd be all for that. But you still need to reveal the calculations (in terms of speed and reaction times) you use to arrive at your proposed regulation.
Speed...Too many low timers are hooking it in.
Reaction times...They are not hooking it in.

Just respond, please, if you are able, in terms of physiological reaction times, canopy speeds and approach angles.

Please also say why "education is not working" if it hasn't been tried yet, that is, there isn't a section on canopy progression in the SIM.

Mark


mikkey  (D License)

Jun 18, 2003, 9:03 PM
Post #154 of 289 (1059 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I mentioned earlier in this thread that if we can not talk to the dead jumpers, we should at least listen to the ones that survived these types of accident and I posted something from the incident forum.

Here is another quote from the forum regarding the incident in Elsinore where a guy with 50 jumps and somwhere between 1.2 and 1.5 WL (conflicting information) barely survived:

Quote:
Does Bill think that USPA or Elsinore for that matter should institute some WL restrictions so the next guy won't do the same thing???

Yes, he believes guidelines should be in place to help with decision making for the young jumpers.

Or does he really, really think that he screwed up & has no one to blame but himself???

He takes responsibility for his choices and actions, but believes that he should have been counseled more in depth and educated on what he -should- buy.

Does he have recollection of others saying he was down sizing too fast?

No. 2 instructors, who he named, gave him the nod to buy this equipment, and he went with this.

Why didn't he 'believe' the other people that told him this ahead of time?

See above.

What could have one of the 'advance' warning people have said to him to prevent him from down sizing so fast?

See above

We should maybe pay more attention to those who experienced this situation. From where I stand, these accounts make clearly the case for some kind of regulation / guide lines in combination with structured training programs.


(This post was edited by mikkey on Jun 18, 2003, 10:06 PM)


stilettodude  (D 21881)

Jun 18, 2003, 9:31 PM
Post #155 of 289 (1055 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

1.8 @ 350. In a lot of cases you will find that jump numbers don't have a darn thing to do with with experience levels ( don't flame me yet) to a certain extent. I have seen (close friends) with thousands of jumps laying in the hospital with a fractured vertebre....you might have an eagle eye on your final for several hundred jumps but it only takes one time in the corner to lose it.


jerm  (D 23994)

Jun 18, 2003, 10:32 PM
Post #156 of 289 (1048 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Nathaniel,

You seem to think you know an awful lot about all of this for someone with so very little experience in the sport.

Hang a round a while. Wach a few people go in from poor canopy choices. Watch how well the mentoring program works with the people who don't think they need it.

Your argument about people leaving skydiving if they can't jump a 1.8 canopy until they have 501 jumps is utter bullshit.. If i'm wrong, good.. let them leave and kill themselves somewhere else, i don't need their blood smearing the reputation of my sport. If i'm right, then they'll get the education they need either through experience or a class.. either way they're more likely to live longer.

And as for how we got "From dead bodies to BSRs". Dead bodies are EXACTLY how we get to BSRs. Again, hang out for a while and learn what you're talking about.


-jerm

1100 jumps, 1.42, samurai 150


jerm  (D 23994)

Jun 18, 2003, 10:55 PM
Post #157 of 289 (1045 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I put myself in the category of risk-averse...but I don't think it's right to extend my risk aversity into the lives of others -- except when other people's decisions endanger me of course...

ah.. then you agree with us. It DOES endanger me.

It endangers me under canopy when someone doesn't have the skills to be flying that wing

It endangers me in the landing area when someone may hook into me (hey, if they can't steer clear of the ground, why are the any mroe capable of steering clear of me?)

It endangers my sleep habits and my concentration when i get flashbacks of watching someone bounce.

It endangers my dropzone when it has to fork over legal fees to fight lawsuits of dishonorable jumpers or grieving families

It endangers my dropzone when the local town officials won't renew the lease cause of all the people getting seriously injuerd/killed

It endangers my sport when the FAA decides to poke its head in and do something about all the people getting killed.


jerm  (D 23994)

Jun 18, 2003, 11:01 PM
Post #158 of 289 (1044 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Please also say why "education is not working" if it hasn't been tried yet, that is, there isn't a section on canopy progression in the SIM.

because there IS education available.. and the only people i see getting it (having been to a canopy skills camp and a CRW camp (different soirt of canopy skills camp) in the last 2 weeks) are the people who are already safety concious.

The people who really need the education to keepo them alive (becuause they're downsizing so fast) aren't getting it. THAT is the problem.


jerm  (D 23994)

Jun 18, 2003, 11:09 PM
Post #159 of 289 (1041 views)
Shortcut
Re: Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

People (sub-500 jumps).. we're not telling you you can't jump something.... all we're doing is saying to wait a little while before you do.

This is coming from 'older'.more experiences jumpers who have beena round to see a lot, and have a perspective on the issue that newer jumpers just can't.

WHY is it so bad to have to wait until you've been in the sport long enough to be more likely to really understand the dangers. To wait long enough to build the skills you need to survive?

is your life, and the lives of your friends, potentially worth the sating fo a bit of impatience?

why is waiting a few jumps SUCH a bad thing?

Impractical as it would be, if the regulation went into effect tomorrow, BUT you would be grandfathered if you were out of compliance (trying to take away the self-serving part of the decision making process here), would you still disagree so vehemently?

if you're so in favor of mentors, why won't you listen to the ones who are screaming at you right now?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 18, 2003, 11:59 PM
Post #160 of 289 (1037 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>Just respond, please, if you are able, in terms of physiological
> reaction times, canopy speeds and approach angles.

That's an odd thing to ask. Is it your belief that people are getting killed because their reaction times are too slow, their canopies are too fast or their approach angles too steep?

Human beings can fly anything from a Manta to a 3:1 Crossfire to an F-14 to a space shuttle, at speeds from a few MPH to 18,000 MPH. Shuttle pilots do not have incredibly fast reaction times that allow them to fly at those speeds, they have incredibly good training. It is not speed or approach angle or slow reactions that are killing jumpers, it is lack of skill.


Ron

Jun 19, 2003, 5:20 AM
Post #161 of 289 (1021 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Read the replys below...

Does Bill think that USPA or Elsinore for that matter should institute some WL restrictions so the next
guy won't do the same thing???

Yes, he believes guidelines should be in place to help with decision making for the young jumpers.

Or does he really, really think that he screwed up & has no one to blame but himself???

He takes responsibility for his choices and actions, but believes that he should have been counseled
more in depth and educated on what he -should- buy.


Does he have recollection of others saying he was down sizing too fast?

No. 2 instructors, who he named, gave him the nod to buy this equipment, and he went with this.

Why didn't he 'believe' the other people that told him this ahead of time?

See above.

What could have one of the 'advance' warning people have said to him to prevent him from down
sizing so fast?

See above

So TWO instructors told him he would be fine.
So peer preasure is not working...

He thinks he didn't have enough information...And this was DURING the Elsinore "Bridging the Gap" weekend.
So education is not working....


In reply to:
Just respond, please, if you are able, in terms of physiological reaction times, canopy speeds and approach
angles.

Do you have any proof to the contrary?

This guy and all that have hooked in and lived all say "I thought I could handle it" They were wrong, just like the guys that die.

Ron


markbaur  (D 6108)

Jun 19, 2003, 6:04 AM
Post #162 of 289 (1009 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Just respond, please, if you are able, in terms of physiological
> reaction times, canopy speeds and approach angles.

That's an odd thing to ask. Is it your belief that people are getting killed because their reaction times are too slow, their canopies are too fast or their approach angles too steep?

Not at all. My post was in response to the regulationists' attempts to make an analogy between minimum pull altitudes (in the BSRs), and maximum wingloadings (a proposed BSR).

A case can be made for minimum pull altitudes based on physiological reaction times and canopy opening times. These are measurable parameters.

The same case has not been made for wing loading. I agree with your argument that restricting wing loading will probably reduce landing injuries and fatalities, but you need to say what measurable flight/canopy and physiological/psychological parameters you've used to calculate the wing loadings you propose.

Mark


markbaur  (D 6108)

Jun 19, 2003, 6:10 AM
Post #163 of 289 (1007 views)
Shortcut
Re: [okalb] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Has anyone noticed that the majority of the people opposed to the proposed BSR are the people with lower jump numbers.

The really curious thing is the number of people who are for a regulation that doesn't affect their own behavior.

Mark


okalb  (D 22854)

Jun 19, 2003, 6:27 AM
Post #164 of 289 (999 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The really curious thing is the number of people who are for a regulation that doesn't affect their own behavior.

That couldn't be more WRONG. It absolutely affects my behavior when I have to worry about a low-timer killing me or, when I have to scrape them up off the landing area or, when my DZ gets shutdown because too many are getting killed.

The reason the people with the higher numbers are for regulation is because we have been around long enough to see what has been going on. Actually, I consider my own canopy progression a little to fast, but when I sat down and reviewed it last week, I realized that it almost perfectly fell within the guidelines that we are proposing.

-OK


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 19, 2003, 6:37 AM
Post #165 of 289 (992 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Human beings can fly anything from a Manta to a 3:1 Crossfire to an F-14 to a space shuttle, at speeds from a few MPH to 18,000 MPH. Shuttle pilots do not have incredibly fast reaction times that allow them to fly at those speeds, they have incredibly good training. It is not speed or approach angle or slow reactions that are killing jumpers, it is lack of skill.

Bill, that summed it all up and it's what I've tried to say too when comparing canopy pilot training to aircraft pilot training. NO ONE is born knowing how to fly anything! You have to train.


markbaur  (D 6108)

Jun 19, 2003, 8:34 AM
Post #166 of 289 (973 views)
Shortcut
Re: [okalb] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It absolutely affects my behavior when I have to worry about a low-timer killing me or, when I have to scrape them up off the landing area or, when my DZ gets shutdown because too many are getting killed.

Thanks for reinforcing my point. You want other people to change what they are doing; you don't want to change what you are doing yourself.

Mark


okalb  (D 22854)

Jun 19, 2003, 8:39 AM
Post #167 of 289 (970 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Thanks for reinforcing my point. You want other people to change what they are doing; you don't want to change what you are doing yourself.

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. I have 1400 jumps and jump a heavily loaded velocity and I have just organized a group of 6 people INCLUDING MYSELF from my dz to go to Deland and take Scott Miller's canopy class. Do I feel I need to change what I am doing....no, but there is always more to learn.

-OK


Ron

Jun 19, 2003, 8:54 AM
Post #168 of 289 (966 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Thanks for reinforcing my point. You want other people to change what they are doing; you don't want to
change what you are doing yourself.

Well you see the problem is not with Oren 1,500 jumps at I think a 1.5 wingload...Nor with me 2,900 jumps at a 1.7.

The problem is with guys with under 500 jumps and these wingloads.

If I saw a trend where guys with 2000 jumps were getting killed pulling low (we already have a rule), or getting killed while jumping drunk (again already a rule), guys getting killed doing chutless jumps (Again a rule already) or for that matter getting killed trying to land a wingsuit(I think there used to be a ban on ridged wing suits...because they were killing people)...I would say hey, lets do something about it.

But this issue, and this thread is about guys with not enough experience geting killed on canopies that they let their egos pick.

As to why I used Jump #'s in relation to experience...Well we already do that.

As to why jump #'s from 1 to 500...Two reasons...From looking at the fatalities last year of people dying while trying to land cool (hook it) only one had more than 500 jumps. (and he was stoned out of his mind).

My second reason is that 500 jumps is the new "D".

As for the wingloads...Well the average guy that died hooking it had 300 jumps and a 1.5 wingload...A 1.5 wingload seems to be the most popular wingload, and is quickly in some circles being taken as the "norm".

Being the norm does not make it safe...The laws of physics have not changed since the Stiletto came out, they are still as high performance as they were, but now we have higher performance canopies, so they are considered "LESS" than they were before.

Education has improved, but so has the availability of these "less" high performance canopies. In 1995 a guy with 300 jumps would have a VERY hard time getting Stiletto. Now almost anyone can get one.

Education has not kept pace with availability.

Ron


CanuckInUSA  (D 26396)

Jun 19, 2003, 9:09 AM
Post #169 of 289 (960 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The problem is with guys with under 500 jumps and these wingloads.

I'm not going to argue that low timers aren't being hurt/killed under highly loaded wings. But so called skygods with thousands of jumps have also been hurt. Yes experience means something as does skill and currency. But the bottom line is that the margin for error on a highly loaded canopy isn't very big and those who jump the pocket rockets need to be aware of the risks (as I'm sure many of the more experienced are).


(This post was edited by CanuckInUSA on Jun 19, 2003, 9:10 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 19, 2003, 9:13 AM
Post #170 of 289 (956 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhino] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

But how many people with 300 jumps and a 1.5 wingload are doing just fine? Oh, no-one bothered to find out.

If there's a stampede of low time jumpers to highly loaded canopies and 1.5 is the new norm, why aren't the fatalities in the hundreds or thousands? - over 50% of USPA members have fewer than 300 jumps?


Ron

Jun 19, 2003, 9:18 AM
Post #171 of 289 (954 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
But how many people with 300 jumps and a 1.5 wingload are doing just fine? Oh, no-one bothered to find
out.

The only number I have to look at is to see who is getting hurt/killed and why.

Who? Guys with less than 500 jumps.

Why? Not enough skill or experience.


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 19, 2003, 9:53 AM
Post #172 of 289 (944 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Has anyone noticed that the majority of the people opposed to the proposed BSR are the people with lower jump numbers.

The really curious thing is the number of people who are for a regulation that doesn't affect their own behavior.

and perhaps the number of people who by virtue of being older and perhaps having increased outside responsibilities are not as likely to desire to increase their acceptable risk level..

as i said to be meaningful everyone SHOULD post

jump #s /WL (ie will it affect you)
age / # of responsibilities (to determine if you are someone who is likely to desire to "push the envelope")

granted there are most probably older people with kids who DO desire to fly napkins, that may (are more likely too) kill them, but they are few in number.

everyone calling for regulation should look at their personal reasons for wanting to "be safer" & "take less risks" and realize not everyone else has those same reasons, and may want to push the envelop farther than others think sane...


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 19, 2003, 9:59 AM
Post #173 of 289 (939 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
But how many people with 300 jumps and a 1.5 wingload are doing just fine? Oh, no-one bothered to find
out.

The only number I have to look at is to see who is getting hurt/killed and why.

Who? Guys with less than 500 jumps.

Why? Not enough skill or experience.

so when/if your proposed BSR is in place and the same number of fatalities under good open canopies is confined mostly to 500+ jumpers with high wingloading..

you'll be ok with that??? because they've now met your 500 jump number to be a "skydiving adult" and are now allowed to take any risks they want regarding canopy choices and flight/landings styles?

what if the number of fatalities goes up?? what if we have 25 in one year all with 500+ jumps?? will you then accept that people are taking risks they KNOW about and are still dying because of the choices THEY made? or will you call for more restriction?? because "to many people are dying making decisions that are to risky" for you??


(This post was edited by Zenister on Jun 19, 2003, 10:14 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 19, 2003, 10:06 AM
Post #174 of 289 (934 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>A case can be made for minimum pull altitudes based on physiological
>reaction times and canopy opening times. These are measurable
>parameters.

Which case is that? You can safely pull at 1000 feet with the right equipment and experience (a Raven II for a main and a Skyhook in your reserve system, doing a clear and pull.) If you have a 2:1 snively Xaos 82, then 2500 feet might be too low. In other words, 2000 feet is not anything like a comprehensive pull altitude "based on measurable physiological reation times." It's a simple round number, a compromise that works OK based on the gear of 20 years ago. There have been no peer-reviewed studies that say it works. We use it simply because our intuition tells us it works OK.

>but you need to say what measurable flight/canopy and
>physiological/psychological parameters you've used to calculate the
>wing loadings you propose.

There are no such parameters. Canopy injuries and fatalities are not caused by lack of reaction time, they are caused by lack of skill. Would you test a skydiving instructor based purely on some physiological parameters? Of course not; the idea is silly. You test him based on his skill as a teacher and jumpmaster - and then say he needs 360 jumps to even take the test.


JJohnson  (D 22675)

Jun 19, 2003, 10:44 AM
Post #175 of 289 (917 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

That was probably the best point I have seen in this debate yet. Good call.


Ron

Jun 19, 2003, 10:51 AM
Post #176 of 289 (1059 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
what if the number of fatalities goes up?? what if we have 25 in one year all with 500+ jumps?? will you then accept
that people are taking risks they KNOW about and are still dying because of the choices THEY made?

Yep.. I'll be ok with it then. At some point you have to stand back and say "fuck it".

No one has been taken to the hospital and said "Well I knew it was just a matter of time till I screwed up"

I figure by the time that most get 500 jumps they have been around long enough to make wise choices. If not...Then they will learn the hard way or die.

Some guy with 100-200-300 jumps does not in my opinion have the knowledge to make these choices. The proof is in the fatality reports....No matter HOW current he is..In fact the less time he has in the sport, the less likely that he has seen the carnage caused by a botched hook.

Honestly I think you should have seen at least one really bad hook, visit the guy in the hospital about 6 times, and have really good health insurance before you are allowed to fly a HP canopy.....But thats not gonna happen.

The real question boils down to when are you off student status? I say never. I think that the ones above me should watch me...and I should watch out for all below me.

Ron


(This post was edited by Ron on Jun 19, 2003, 10:53 AM)


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 19, 2003, 10:59 AM
Post #177 of 289 (1055 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The real question boils down to when are you off student status? I say never. I think that the ones above me should watch me...and I should watch out for all below me.

here we completely agree.. i guess we are mostly just arguing over the point at which we as a community "stop holding your hand" and let you take your own chances..

i dont think anyone ever attempts a turn, jump etc.. with the intention/ mindset of "i might not be able to handle this"

of course they think they can everytime, confidence (even misplaced) is an important part of success...if you didnt would you try it at all?? To find the edges of your personal envelope, and to expand it you have to take chances that you might not pass...at some point someone will try to land a sub 50 sq ft canopy..if they dont succeed i would fully expect them to still say "i thought i could handle it" becasue if they didnt they never should have tried in the first place..


Ron

Jun 19, 2003, 11:21 AM
Post #178 of 289 (1049 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
here we completely agree.. i guess we are mostly just arguing over the point at which we as a community "stop
holding your hand" and let you take your own chances..

I say never.

I do think that there comes a point that you can't make rules for everything, and that some people are just stupid and no amount of regulation will save them from themselves.
But the time to quit "holding their hand" is when they have shown enough skill, respect,knowledge and experience to handle themselves safely...It is clear that people with less than 500 jumps don't know enough about canopy selection. Or have the skills and experiece to fly them if they get them.

It is also clear that education, while the best answer, is not working.

In reply to:
at some point someone will try to land a sub 50 sq ft canopy..

Luigi landed the VX46 already.

Ron


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 19, 2003, 11:26 AM
Post #179 of 289 (1048 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
at some point someone will try to land a sub 50 sq ft canopy..

Luigi landed the VX46 already.
so if (and thankfull he didnt.) he had injured himself doing so do you think he would have said "i thought i could handle it"?

i find it hard to believe that anyone (without a death wish) consistantly takes risks they dont think they could handle..and i fail to see why anyone who admits that they screwed up when they are injured calls for regulation to prevent them from hurting themselves again.. perhaps they just shouldnt have taken the risk in the first place if they werent prepared for the consequences of failure?


Ron

Jun 19, 2003, 11:51 AM
Post #180 of 289 (1044 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
perhaps they just shouldnt have taken the risk in the first place if
they werent prepared for the consequences of failure?

The problem is most new jumpers don't think they can fail.
They don't have the EXPERIENCE to know that it can happen.
They have never EXPERIENCED anything like it.

Most jumpers in the 100-300 jump range think they are 10 feet tall and bounce proof...I did, and in fact I should have bounced at least once, and did smack the ground quite hard another time. After all they have jumped 300 TIMES...Geeze that seems like a lot...Until you get 500...Then 1,000...I bet there are a lot of guys that think my 2,900 is nothing.

I have no problem with a guy that wants to do swoop landings. As long as he is willing to go to classes, and LISTEN to what people have to say to him.

That is why I support Regulation WITH education...I know that education is the true answer...Now how do I get these people to understand they need it?

The problem is that MOST don't know they don't know what they are doing. They are the "one". They are "skilled above their jump #'s". These are the ones that say..."Jump numbers are meaningless ways to tell skill."

Fact is it is a very good way. Not 100% mind you, but nothing is. If I was planning a jump and a guy with 100 jumps wanted on and a guy with 500...9 out of 10 I would bet that they guy with 500 would be the better bet. Yes not always, but 9 out of 10 times it is the right choice.

And never forget no amount of training replaces skills that are earned with experience...Training can help you learn faster, but you still need experience.

Regulation will make them get training, or they will have to wait...and gain experience while they wait.

Ron


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 19, 2003, 12:08 PM
Post #181 of 289 (1039 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The problem is most new jumpers don't think they can fail.
They don't have the EXPERIENCE to know that it can happen.
They have never EXPERIENCED anything like it.

so basically we need regulation to make people recognize the laws of physics still apply??
shouldnt that be done in high school?

why is it the USPA's responsibility to inform people that when you fall down you can get hurt? that when you fall down at a high rate of speed you can be hurt very badly?? that any time someone you know gets killed its emotionally tramatic and maybe you should think about that before you put your friends and familly in that possible position?

why is the USPA responsible for making skydivers understand the basic facts of life???

if someone hasnt learned that by age 16 or so..their parents must have REALLY kept them on to short a leash


(This post was edited by Zenister on Jun 19, 2003, 12:19 PM)


Ron

Jun 19, 2003, 12:37 PM
Post #182 of 289 (1029 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
why is the USPA responsible for making skydivers understand the basic facts of life???

No, but to protect them till they realize that they are not bounce proof...Yes.

We already do it now.

But we now have a new problem, and the old ways are not fixing them.

Ron


wmw999  (D 6296)

Jun 19, 2003, 12:46 PM
Post #183 of 289 (1026 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
so basically we need regulation to make people recognize the laws of physics still apply??
shouldnt that be done in high school?

Learning something, and having enough instances of experience with it for it to sink in for the general population, are two entirely different things. After you learn addition, they make you practice it, right? And show that you can apply it in a number of different situations.

Education can take the place of experience, but in life-threatening situations, one or the other should be present.

The idea is to try make sure that basic canopy piloting skills are present in people who don't have a very big bag of experience. Yes, it's for their protection and ours. If there weren't a disproportionate number of misjudged landings for one reason or another among younger pilots, then there wouldn't be a perceived need for this protection.

So maybe the onus should be on the pilots to get the education. Have you asked anyone with a high-ish wingloading if they've taken a canopy control class?

Wendy W.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 19, 2003, 12:54 PM
Post #184 of 289 (1021 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>why is it the USPA's responsibility to inform people that when you fall down you can get hurt?

"The United States Parachute Association . . . promotes safe skydiving through parachuting training, rating, and competition programs. USPA represents parachute jumping from aircraft and helps keep skydivers in the air."

From their mission statement.

>why is the USPA responsible for making skydivers understand the
>basic facts of life???

The basic facts of life do not include the myriad details required to land a high performance canopy safely. They do not even include enough knowledge to realize how much you don't know about what it takes to safely land a HP canopy. If it were that easy we'd cover it in the FJC.


mikkey  (D License)

Jun 19, 2003, 2:59 PM
Post #185 of 289 (1002 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
and perhaps the number of people who by virtue of being older and perhaps having increased outside responsibilities are not as likely to desire to increase their acceptable risk level..

as i said to be meaningful everyone SHOULD post

jump #s /WL (ie will it affect you)
age / # of responsibilities (to determine if you are someone who is likely to desire to "push the envelope")

granted there are most probably older people with kids who DO desire to fly napkins, that may (are more likely too) kill them, but they are few in number.

everyone calling for regulation should look at their personal reasons for wanting to "be safer" & "take less risks" and realize not everyone else has those same reasons, and may want to push the envelop farther than others think sane...

So experience and age is a bad thing? Skydiving should be as risky and unsafe as possible - then it is more fun?? Give me a break.

Yes, people who are older / have more jumps seem to be more concerned about this issue. But not just because they have more responsibilities e.g. kids. There are a number of reasons:
1) It gets depressing to see people die and unsafe jumpers are not just a danger for themselves. It does affect your enjoyment of the sport. Not all of us think it is "cool " if the sport is more dangerous then necessary.
2) High fatality and injury rates do affect the sport negatively: Insurance, potential regulations, hostility towards DZ's by the community, pressure by family etc.
3) I like to see more people getting into the sport. That increases the opportunities to jump (more jumpers, more DZ's, bigger planes, cheaper equipment etc.etc.).
Making it a sport for people that just "want to push the envelope" is IMO stupid.It is an aerosport like flying and I for one like to make it as safe as possible.

If you like to perform an activity in order to "push the envelope" and demonstrate what a cool guy you are, I suggest you go out somewhere isolated and do some free climbing - by yourself. Or if you have to jump - do some BASE - by yourself.


(This post was edited by mikkey on Jun 19, 2003, 3:03 PM)


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 19, 2003, 3:34 PM
Post #186 of 289 (990 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mikkey] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If you like to perform an activity in order to "push the envelope" and demonstrate what a cool guy you are, I suggest you go out somewhere isolated and do some free climbing - by yourself. Or if you have to jump - do some BASE - by yourself.

you seem to think its all about being cool, which of course perhaps it is for some, but i give a rats ass if you or anyone else thinks it 'cool' or not..

I do freeclimb (when i'm 'current' climbing)
and will BASE in the near future..

skydiving was apparently once about finding & pushing your personal limits and the limits of what the "you cant do that its INSANE" wuffos thought couldnt be done as well..to bad to many people with "grandmothers mentalities" have taken over in the interests popularity and profit. how sad.

by the tone of your post i guess your goal is to . . .

Please try to keep to discussing the issue rather than speculating on what other people's goals are.


(This post was edited by billvon on Jun 19, 2003, 8:31 PM)


mikkey  (D License)

Jun 19, 2003, 5:49 PM
Post #187 of 289 (966 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
you seem to think its all about being cool, which of course perhaps it is for some, but i give a rats ass if you or anyone else thinks it 'cool' or not
Your answers show the opposite of what yoy are claiming here.

Quote:
I do freeclimb (when i'm 'current' climbing)
and will BASE in the near future..

skydiving was apparently once about finding & pushing your personal limits and the limits of what the "you cant do that its INSANE"
"Apparantly" - how do you know. Skydiving became a "sport" with a broad base when it stopped being a dangerous "stunt" and it become a structured "sport" with better and safer equipment and rules.
Quote:
wuffos thought couldnt be done as well..to bad to many people with "grandmothers mentalities" have taken over in the interests popularity and profit. how sad.
Now this just shows your . . .

Please try to keep this discussion civil without resorting to insults.


(This post was edited by billvon on Jun 19, 2003, 8:37 PM)


mwolfe  (D 22243)

Jun 19, 2003, 5:54 PM
Post #188 of 289 (965 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

A friend told me about this thread and I felt compelled to read. It is amazing how, as OKALB stated, those with lower jump numbers are adament about being able to jump higher wing loadings. I believe that education through regulation is a good idea here. Why?, because the current system does not work! How many of these people who are proponents of "freedom" have seen anyone they know or care for make a mistake under a highly wingloaded canopy? It is ugly at best and tragic more times than not. Time in sport seems to be a very humbling factor.
As long as there is an option to test out, no intelligent person should oppose something that would make skydiving a safer place for all involved.
Can you make your canopy land (stop) where you want it to ALL the time?
1400 jumps, 1000@1.3 under a 170 and now @1.4


cloud9  (D 27635)

Jun 19, 2003, 6:04 PM
Post #189 of 289 (958 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mwolfe] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Ok guys lets get serious for a moment. I’m against any new regs but by all means for safety in our sport. I can’t argue against life saving regs. Since I don’t think I’m alone, how about we try this.

When we sign log books we read what was written, we make student and low time jumpers really do the requirements for their license. Including landing within the parameters of their perspective license rating. I think we would find that they wouldn’t be able to downsize; and if they could then they probably would be ok under that canopy.

Now lets get real for a second, very few drop zones and very few students really meet the requirements for their respective licenses. Water jumps, landing within a parameter, RW skills night jumps all or some of these are fudged on many I say again many license applications.

Also DZ’s are going to have to at least make an effort. I have been to 4 drop zones this year (2003) and not one asked me my wing loading, or what kind of main I was jumping. Now perhaps in their defense they figure if you have a D you can jump anything you want, but hey that wouldn’t fit in the wing loading BSR would it.

So as you can see this is so much deeper then a new BSR, which is why I’m so against it. As of this date the only thing I see coming from the new proposal is some people will feel better, hey I did what I could. That’s not going to make a difference.

As for those of you that care, please keep caring we’re all better for it!


markbaur  (D 6108)

Jun 19, 2003, 7:11 PM
Post #190 of 289 (944 views)
Shortcut
Re: [okalb] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Once again you have no idea what you are talking about... Do I feel I need to change what I am doing....no.

Thanks for reinforcing my point a second time.

Mark


nathaniel

Jun 19, 2003, 7:23 PM
Post #191 of 289 (940 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jerm] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Your argument about people leaving skydiving if they can't jump a 1.8 canopy until they have 501 jumps is utter bullshit..

So we can regulate them however we want, and it doesn't matter they will all stay in the USPA? The point is not that one rule will collapse the USPA, it's that bad rules are bad. It doesn't matter if we already have other bad rules (or not). I would like to keep the number of bad rules to a minimum.

Quote:
Dead bodies are EXACTLY how we get to BSRs. Again, hang out for a while and learn what you're talking about.

So if people die it doesn't matter how, we'll just make up new arbitrary rules and feel better about it? This knee-jerk approach makes me feel worse, not better.

Give me a good reason the rule will lead to fewer fatalities and you will be talking to a proponent. Give me the same promises that it will lead to fewer fatalities without logic to back it up and I remain a skeptic.

nathaniel


okalb  (D 22854)

Jun 19, 2003, 7:26 PM
Post #192 of 289 (938 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Once again you have no idea what you are talking about... Do I feel I need to change what I am doing....no.

Thanks for reinforcing my point a second time.

Mark

If you are going to quote me, I would appreciate it if you quote the whole thing. You have just proven that you are not worth discussing this with any further.


nathaniel

Jun 19, 2003, 7:39 PM
Post #193 of 289 (933 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jerm] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

To me these aren't arguments for this proposed BSR. They are great arguments for things like separate swooping areas (enter at your own risk), sleep therapy / counseling, release waivers, etc.

You're assuming the proposal would lead to fewer fatalities... IMO fewer fatalities is one of several possibilities together with no effect on fatality rate and increased fatality rate. I think no effect is the most likely result.

No effect on the overall fatality rate, that is. Maybe an effect on the low-jump# pocket rocket fatality rate, but to reiterate a point I made several posts up I don't think it's right to say some kinds of fatalities are "better" than others.

Several people have been alluding to actions by other regulatory agencies eg FAA...am I missing something? Has the FAA or anybody besides the people on this board brought the subject up? not including the usual cast of people that think skydiving should be banned in general...

nathaniel


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jun 19, 2003, 7:54 PM
Post #194 of 289 (925 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The point is not that one rule will collapse the USPA, it's that bad rules are bad. It doesn't matter if we already have other bad rules (or not). I would like to keep the number of bad rules to a minimum.
Which of the BSR's do you feel are "bad" rules? Give reasons.

What makes you think any regulation will go into effect without months if not years of debate at the board level?

What are YOU going to do to make sure that a "bad" rule isn't put into effect?

In reply to:
Give me a good reason the rule will lead to fewer fatalities and you will be talking to a proponent. Give me the same promises that it will lead to fewer fatalities without logic to back it up and I remain a skeptic.
Reread the other threads on this subject. There have been plenty of reasons already posted.

Personally, I'm more about reducing the number of landing injuries than the number of deaths. Too many injured jumpers never get back in the air, and watching someone screw themselves up is a rather unpleasant experience.

Sorry, but I can't understand how anyone who gives a shit about their fellow skydivers and the sport in general could NOT support USPA doing something to reduce the number of landing injuries and deaths.

Oh yeah. 930 jumps, 13 years in the sport, a bunch of ratings, 7 years selling gear, 1.0-1.1 wingloading.


Kris  (D 26033)

Jun 19, 2003, 8:09 PM
Post #195 of 289 (918 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Excellent response, Lisa.

Nathaniel, it has been stated time and time before, "The BSR's are written in blood."

If things keep going at the rate they are, we'll have more than enough blood to have a new one written for this.

~300 jumps, 5 years in sport this Sep, 1.35:1 wingloading, and I am for regulation.


markbaur  (D 6108)

Jun 19, 2003, 8:13 PM
Post #196 of 289 (913 views)
Shortcut
Re: [okalb] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Thanks for reinforcing my point. You want other people to change what they are doing; you don't want to change what you are doing yourself.
Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. I have 1400 jumps and jump a heavily loaded velocity and I have just organized a group of 6 people INCLUDING MYSELF from my dz to go to Deland and take Scott Miller's canopy class. Do I feel I need to change what I am doing....no, but there is always more to learn.

I don't think my condensation of your post affected its thrust, but I include it now in its entirety.

In all of these related threads, I can recall only one person saying he would give up the canopy he was jumping in order to comply with a new regulation. There may be others, but my point still remains: of all the folks who are in favor of regulation, how many would have to change something they are doing now in order to comply?

Ron says no one would have to -- they'd all be grandfathered, because it wouldn't be fair to make them buy canopies more suited to their education and experience.

If you are going to a canopy class now, it isn't because a regulation requires it, it's because you think it is a good idea. You are doing what you want to do, and you don't want to change (and I wouldn't want you to change, either!). Is there more to learn? Absolutely! You and I agree on that.

BUT... Would you support a WL regulation that required you to buy a different canopy? Or one that made swooping and swoop contests less glamorous? Would you support a WL regulation that required you to do something different than you're doing now?

Mark


okalb  (D 22854)

Jun 19, 2003, 8:38 PM
Post #197 of 289 (897 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
BUT... Would you support a WL regulation that required you to buy a different canopy? Or one that made swooping and swoop contests less glamorous? Would you support a WL regulation that required you to do something different than you're doing now?

No I wouldn't, but not for the reason that you are getting at. I wouldn't because I have 1400 jumps and I wouldn't support regulation that would say that someone with 1400 jumps doesn't know enough to make up their own mind. I will support regulation that says that someone with 200 jumps doesn't know enough to make up their own mind, because for the most part they don't.

As long as there is a way for them to prove they are competent and test out, than a regulation such as this can only help the situation. There is no denying that someone with 100 jumps should not be jumping a 1.5 to 1 wingload without serious training and even then it is still risky.

I can sit in a classroom with you all day and teach you about how to safely take my motorcycle out on the track, but until you have done a lot of laps around that track, you are a danger to yourself and the others around you. All we are saying is start out on a small manageable bike before you take an open class unforgiving sport bike out there.

Lots of people have talked about regulations taking away your personal right to choose as a low timer, but nobody has come up with any substantial negatives to making people wait until they know a little more before they get in over their head.


nathaniel

Jun 19, 2003, 8:46 PM
Post #198 of 289 (893 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Kris] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I think I have misspoken for I did not mean to disparage the current set of BSRs... I apologize for the confusion--this is not what I meant to convey. It is in fact my esteem for the current set of BSRs that gives me pause when new ones are proposed.

nathaniel


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 19, 2003, 9:00 PM
Post #199 of 289 (889 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>BUT... Would you support a WL regulation that required you to buy a different canopy?

Personally? If it was something that I thought was a good tradeoff between regulation and saving lives - yes, I would.

>Or one that made swooping and swoop contests less glamorous?

Glamour does not enter into my considerations when it comes to regulation in skydiving.

> Would you support a WL regulation that required you to do something different than you're doing now?

Again, if it was a good balance - yes.


Ron

Jun 20, 2003, 4:42 AM
Post #200 of 289 (864 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cloud9] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Also DZ’s are going to have to at least make an effort. I have been to 4 drop zones this year (2003) and not
one asked me my wing loading, or what kind of main I was jumping. Now perhaps in their defense they figure
if you have a D you can jump anything you want, but hey that wouldn’t fit in the wing loading BSR would it.

Well, right now there is nothing in place for them to check against.

And to be honest it WOULD fit in...The new"D" is 500 jumps...so it would fit in really nice.

In reply to:
So as you can see this is so much deeper then a new BSR, which is why I’m so against it. As of this date the
only thing I see coming from the new proposal is some people will feel better, hey I did what I could. That’s
not going to make a difference.

No, it will prevent people from getting high wingloads with out experience or classes with proven performance...

How can you not see that?

Ron


Ron

Jun 20, 2003, 4:45 AM
Post #201 of 289 (974 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Replying to:
Re: [okalb] Wingload BSR by markbaur
Post:

In Reply To


Once again you have no idea what you are talking about... Do I feel I need to change what I am
doing....no.



Thanks for reinforcing my point a second time.

How about you qouting the whole thing...ya know the part where he is going to take classes?

You are not making your point at all. Guys like Oren are not getting killed. If they were, then people would be trying to regulate them.

Ron


Ron

Jun 20, 2003, 4:49 AM
Post #202 of 289 (974 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

This post is just proof you have not been around long enough.

BSR's are written not because ONE guy died...They are written when a TREND is seen.

Look around...learn some more...Do you not see a trend of guys getting wings they can't handle...

Do you know the difference between a high wingload, and a safe wingload? (I am not trying to slam you here, but you have only 88 jumps). Do you understand the issue?

It is not about makinga rule to make a rule...It is to stop a trend.

Say what you want the TREND is there.

Education is not working to fix it.


Ron


Ron

Jun 20, 2003, 5:09 AM
Post #203 of 289 (967 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
and perhaps the number of people who by virtue of being older and perhaps having increased outside responsibilities
are not as likely to desire to increase their acceptable risk level..

as i said to be meaningful everyone SHOULD post

jump #s /WL (ie will it affect you)
age / # of responsibilities (to determine if you are someone who is likely to desire to "push the envelope")

2,900 1.7 & 1.8 (I had a 2.6, but I found that it was to hard to fly that on EVERY jump, at EVERY DZ.)
30 years old....I have a Dog.

Number of dead people I have seen on a DZ...4
Number of people I have Known that died...On second thought, I don't want to count these up. A LOT.
Number of people I have seen fucked up on a DZ...Way to many to count.

Ron


wmw999  (D 6296)

Jun 20, 2003, 5:23 AM
Post #204 of 289 (965 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
and perhaps the number of people who by virtue of being older and perhaps having increased outside responsibilities
are not as likely to desire to increase their acceptable risk level..

as i said to be meaningful everyone SHOULD post

jump #s /WL (ie will it affect you)
age / # of responsibilities (to determine if you are someone who is likely to desire to "push the envelope")

Remember, the current proposal won't impact any current canopies.

But I'm 48, I have one adult child, plenty of insurance, and two dogs. 1200 jumps, and I wingload at about 1.1.

Wendy W.


Genn  (D 22590)

Jun 20, 2003, 5:33 AM
Post #205 of 289 (962 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Is it better to save and let them die in traffic accident or cancer? Let them die young! Let the natural selection rule the world!
In reply to:

I'll probably get bashed for saying this but I kinda agree with you. People should know their limits. People can read the 'warning' labels. Skydiving(which includes swooping) can kill, we all know that. If a skydiver goes against all the 'warnings' and swoops at whatever jump #s he/she has, then that is his/her choice. They might be the ones who get away with it, they might be the ones who get injured(and hopefully humbled), or they might be the ones who get killed.

"If you're gonna be stupid, you better be tough!"

And I don't think regulation will make stupid people smarter. Now, people do what they want to do regardless of current regulations. I just think it will be another rule for people to break.

This sport used to be full of freedom.

IMO, Do what you may and cover your actions!

That goes for ALL aspects of skydiving.


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 20, 2003, 5:35 AM
Post #206 of 289 (957 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So if people die it doesn't matter how, we'll just make up new arbitrary rules and feel better about it? This knee-jerk approach makes me feel worse, not better.

Nathaniel. It does matter how they die. That's how we've gotten to this point. The rule is not arbitrary. It has basis in total experience. Jump numbers is the method for determining some background. In order to accumilate 500 jumps you need to have been around a bit. Look at Tandem ratings. You need to have been around awhile so they say 500 jumps AND 3 years in the sport. Since higher wingloadings may not be as complex as Tandem jumping the jump number requirement will have some effect on when someone will be able to get a higher WL. Will this cure everything. Sure as hell not. But it most definitely will have an effect. A good one I think too.

Skydivers think we need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to flying. We don't. We mearly have to look at how pilots are certified for flying high performance and complex planes and recognize that we as humans have limitations. There are times where we need more education to do something different. No one is born knowing how to fly. We have to be taught. And that teaching comes in blood. It is the result of years of broken bodies. Are you going to listen to me now Nathaniel? How many years have you been in this sport or in aviation (if you are a pilot) total? What have you seen?


markbaur  (D 6108)

Jun 20, 2003, 5:40 AM
Post #207 of 289 (952 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How about you qouting the whole thing...ya know the part where he is going to take classes?

You'll see elsewhere in this thread I reposted with the whole quote, which takes up space, but doesn't change the meaning.

He quoted me:
Quote:
BUT... Would you support a WL regulation that required you to buy a different canopy? Or one that made swooping and swoop contests less glamorous? Would you support a WL regulation that required you to do something different than you're doing now?

And here is his response:

>No I wouldn't, but not for the reason that you are getting at.
>I wouldn't because I have 1400 jumps and I wouldn't support
>regulation that would say that someone with 1400 jumps
>doesn't know enough to make up their own mind. I will
>support regulation that says that someone with 200 jumps
>doesn't know enough to make up their own mind, because for
>the most part they don't.

>As long as there is a way for them to prove they are
>competent and test out, than a regulation such as this can only
>help the situation. There is no denying that someone with 100
> jumps should not be jumping a 1.5 to 1 wingload without
>serious training and even then it is still risky.

>I can sit in a classroom with you all day and teach you about
>how to safely take my motorcycle out on the track, but until
>you have done a lot of laps around that track, you are a
>danger to yourself and the others around you. All we are
>saying is start out on a small manageable bike before you take
>an open class unforgiving sport bike out there.

>Lots of people have talked about regulations taking away your
> personal right to choose as a low timer, but nobody has come
>up with any substantial negatives to making people wait until
>they know a little more before they get in over their head.

Taking classes does not represent a change in his behavior. He's doing it without the pressure of regulation.

The bold print in his reply is my emphasis.

I want to be in the "regulation for thee but not for me" camp with you.

Mark


markbaur  (D 6108)

Jun 20, 2003, 5:47 AM
Post #208 of 289 (949 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Remember, the current proposal won't impact any current canopies.

Why not? I don't recall grandfathering anybody with respect to pull altitudes. If some jumpers are using canopies unsuited to their weight and experience, why let them continue? Because it would be too expensive for them to be safe? Statistically, they are more likely to be injured or killed on their next jump than to go any number of jumps and then get killed or injured. How expensive is that?

Mark


Ron

Jun 20, 2003, 6:08 AM
Post #209 of 289 (943 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I know, I was answering him.

Ron


Ron

Jun 20, 2003, 6:17 AM
Post #210 of 289 (941 views)
Shortcut
Re: [markbaur] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

The end result of all of this is simple...

Oren with 1400 jumps, me with 2,900, and you with 4,000 are not the ones getting killed.

It is the guys with 100-500 jumps.

If you, me , and Oren were dying...Then I would be trying to regulate US...But we are not, they are.

I don't buy into the "you are an adult...do what you want" group.

To be a member of ANYTHING means that you sacrifice some personal freedoms for the good of the group.

And to be honest I can't think of a single orginization that is involved in ANY activity that does not have some basic saftey rules. These rules were put in place to PROTECT the group.

Ron


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 20, 2003, 7:16 AM
Post #211 of 289 (942 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
So if people die it doesn't matter how, we'll just make up new arbitrary rules and feel better about it? This knee-jerk approach makes me feel worse, not better.

Nathaniel. It does matter how they die. That's how we've gotten to this point. The rule is not arbitrary. It has basis in total experience. Jump numbers is the method for determining some background. In order to accumilate 500 jumps you need to have been around a bit. Look at Tandem ratings. You need to have been around awhile so they say 500 jumps AND 3 years in the sport. Since higher wingloadings may not be as complex as Tandem jumping the jump number requirement will have some effect on when someone will be able to get a higher WL. Will this cure everything. Sure as hell not. But it most definitely will have an effect. A good one I think too.

Skydivers think we need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to flying. We don't. We mearly have to look at how pilots are certified for flying high performance and complex planes and recognize that we as humans have limitations. There are times where we need more education to do something different. No one is born knowing how to fly. We have to be taught. And that teaching comes in blood. It is the result of years of broken bodies. Are you going to listen to me now Nathaniel? How many years have you been in this sport or in aviation (if you are a pilot) total? What have you seen?

Chris - there are a lot of possible parameters that affect fatalities and injuries under canopy. They include:

Experience
Training
Gender
Age
Personality type
Substance abuse
Sleep deprivation
Reaction time
Visual acuity
Eye-hand coordination
Large and small motor skills
Physical conditioning
and probably things I haven't thought of.

I am AGAINST this proposed BSR for the simple reason that it ASSUMES jump number is the single determining factor, without anyone actually having bothered to look and see if any other factors are, in fact, causal or more relevant.

Any analysis that has been done is at best SUPERFICIAL.

The numbers in the proposal have no basis in anything more scientific than someone's gut-feeling.

This is NOT the way to make rules.

Finally, rules to protect people from themselves are notoriously unsuccessful.

JK, 1220 jumps, WL 1.4, age 57


pkasdorf  (D 40)

Jun 20, 2003, 7:46 AM
Post #212 of 289 (937 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

1,3 and 265 jumps.

Some regulation is needed without going to extremes. It is absolutely clear that even with education people do very dangerous and silly things.

One has to have the freedom to do dangerous and silly things if one wants to? NO! Why? Because it may endanger other fellow skydivers and affects our public image, which is important to keep us enjoying our sport with a minimum of external interference.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 20, 2003, 8:18 AM
Post #213 of 289 (926 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>Chris - there are a lot of possible parameters that affect fatalities and
>injuries under canopy. They include:

>Experience
>Training
>Gender
>Age . . .

Yep. And you could make exactly the same list of things that affect a person's ability to pull at 2000 feet, or of things that affect a person's ability to do a demo. Yet we still have simple jump number limits for those activities. Based purely on fatality stats, those SUPERFICIAL rules that ASSUME jump numbers mean something (your emphasis) seem to work.

>The numbers in the proposal have no basis in anything more scientific
>than someone's gut-feeling.

Neither does any other BSR. We operate primarily on gut feel in this sport. When I teach it's how I decide to pass someone. When I ground someone, I decide that based primarily on gut feel. If I had to rationalize every decision I made as S+TA based on provable, reproducable results, I wouldn't be as effective - and at least two people would be dead by now.

>Finally, rules to protect people from themselves are notoriously unsuccessful.

That's been proven to not be true when it comes to aviation.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jun 20, 2003, 8:26 AM
Post #214 of 289 (923 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
and perhaps the number of people who by virtue of being older and perhaps having increased outside responsibilities
are not as likely to desire to increase their acceptable risk level..

as i said to be meaningful everyone SHOULD post

jump #s /WL (ie will it affect you)
age / # of responsibilities (to determine if you are someone who is likely to desire to "push the envelope")
I'm 38, unemployed and have an adult son who can take care of my 2 dogs if anything happens to me. I have good medical insurance and three fused vertebrae. My gear is the most expensive thing I own.

930 jumps over 13 years, currently flying a 1.0-1.1 wingloading.

I plan to still be jumping when I'm 58. My choice of canopy and wingloading was made with this in mind.


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 20, 2003, 9:17 AM
Post #215 of 289 (915 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Experience
Training
Gender
Age
Personality type
Substance abuse
Sleep deprivation
Reaction time
Visual acuity
Eye-hand coordination
Large and small motor skills
Physical conditioning
and probably things I haven't thought of.

Yes, and that's why people need time in this sport to identify issues they have personally. They need to see more. Every year since I've been in the sport (1995) Parachutist has run the annual fatality report and every year it is a hot topic that people are killing themselves under perfectly functioning canopies. 8 years of questioning. How can you say this is superficial? I think some people get a bit hung up on the numbers and forget that each number is a human being.

The airlines strove for 0 passenger fatalities and have actually achieved that goal in recent years. Not consecutively but it has happened. Why can't that same effort be made in skydiving. There's regulation for recurrent training. And you have to be type rated on each plane you fly. Why is that such a hard concept in skydiving? You must recieve training to fly any canopy you fly. It's regulated that way. In this proposed BSR you can do the training early or you can wait until you meet the jump number requirement. If you really feel that this BSR is bogus I expect you to try and repeal the 500 jump requirement for people to be Tandem Masters. You state that jump numbers mean nothing. How can you let this injustice stand? I know you won't but I'm trying to make a point. Jump numbers is an accepted form of judging experience in this sport. We are currently raising our D license requirement to 500 jumps to get the license. Why? Because we recognize the sport is not the same as in past years. I agree change for changes sake is bad. But in this case change is necessary or we will continue to see many people every year becoming quadraplegics or killed because they are flying canopies beyond their ability and jump numbers.


(This post was edited by diverdriver on Jun 20, 2003, 9:18 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 20, 2003, 9:36 AM
Post #216 of 289 (904 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:

The airlines strove for 0 passenger fatalities and have actually achieved that goal in recent years. Not consecutively but it has happened. Why can't that same effort be made in skydiving. There's regulation for recurrent training. And you have to be type rated on each plane you fly. Why is that such a hard concept in skydiving? You must recieve training to fly any canopy you fly. It's regulated that way.
Are you seriously suggesting that skydiving should be regulated in the same way as commercial aviation?

I think most skydivers would take up some other pastime if that came to pass.

In reply to:
In this proposed BSR you can do the training early or you can wait until you meet the jump number requirement. If you really feel that this BSR is bogus I expect you to try and repeal the 500 jump requirement for people to be Tandem Masters.

False comparison - that rule is not to protect the TM, it is to protect the "passenger".

In reply to:
You state that jump numbers mean nothing. How can you let this injustice stand? I know you won't but I'm trying to make a point. Jump numbers is an accepted form of judging experience in this sport. We are currently raising our D license requirement to 500 jumps to get the license. Why? Because we recognize the sport is not the same as in past years. I agree change for changes sake is bad. But in this case change is necessary or we will continue to see many people every year becoming quadraplegics or killed because they are flying canopies beyond their ability and jump numbers.

I didn't say jump numbers "mean nothing", I said that no serious study has been done that identifies jump numbers as the prime culprit. This rule may be "fixing" the wrong problem.

What purpose is served by having a "D" under the new rules? All the privileges previously conferred seem to remain at 200 jumps. Bogus comparison again.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 20, 2003, 9:44 AM
Post #217 of 289 (898 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Chris - there are a lot of possible parameters that affect fatalities and
>injuries under canopy. They include:

>Experience
>Training
>Gender
>Age . . .

Yep. And you could make exactly the same list of things that affect a person's ability to pull at 2000 feet, or of things that affect a person's ability to do a demo. Yet we still have simple jump number limits for those activities. Based purely on fatality stats, those SUPERFICIAL rules that ASSUME jump numbers mean something (your emphasis) seem to work.

No, there are jump number rules AND other criteria.

In reply to:


>The numbers in the proposal have no basis in anything more scientific
>than someone's gut-feeling.

Neither does any other BSR. We operate primarily on gut feel in this sport. When I teach it's how I decide to pass someone. When I ground someone, I decide that based primarily on gut feel. If I had to rationalize every decision I made as S+TA based on provable, reproducable results, I wouldn't be as effective - and at least two people would be dead by now.

>Finally, rules to protect people from themselves are notoriously unsuccessful.

That's been proven to not be true when it comes to aviation.

So you'd like gun-toting security guards checking our canopy size before we board the plane?

Anyway, I disagree. Every year hundreds of people kill themselves flying VFR into IMC, doing inadequate preflight inspections, failing to have adequate fuel and doing buzz jobs, contrary to the FARs.


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 20, 2003, 9:50 AM
Post #218 of 289 (894 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

John, I completely disagree with everything you said. You say regulation doesn't help. I say it does. Look at the airlines. They strove to get 0 passenger deaths in a year by regulating training. It worked. So how can you say it won't work here? No, we don't need regulation to the level that the airlines have. That's silly. But there are things we can do in this sport to improve it and guide new jumpers. This BSR is one of them. We regulate that student must have RSLs and that other jumpers are encouraged to have them except in certain situations. Why is this so hard to conceive that a regulation can't help?

Well John, I guess you have your work cut out for you. Would you please do the statistics for fatalities for the past 10 years and tell us what percentage of canopy/landing fatalites were people under 500 jumps to how many over. Tell me that the percentage below 500 jumps is not higher than above 500 jumps and I will reverse my view.


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 20, 2003, 9:52 AM
Post #219 of 289 (889 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Remember, the current proposal won't impact any current canopies.

and of course thats another issue.

shouldnt we be wary of passing a rule that you dont want applied to EVERYONE? why is someone with 400 jumps @ 1.8 OK now but after the proposed BSR the next guy to get 400 jumps isnt??

what if the rule were written so that it applied to EVERYONE? ie Mr. 12,000 jumps has to pass the same skills test that mr 300 does to fly the same wingloading??

would everyone still be for it??..even though it meant that they might take away the "toys" you feel its your right to fly by virtue of jump numbers alone??

what if the rule says ANY significant change of wing type requires testing??? after all your 800 jumps on that lightly loaded spectre might not have taught you much about flying the VX88 you just bought... but when you make a mistake, and lots of people make mistakes 1000s of jumps or no.. and hook it in trying a turn you havent practiced enough under a wing your no where near current on....your in the "its ok incidents" because with 800 jumps your a skydiving adult??


In reply to:
... If you really feel that this BSR is bogus I expect you to try and repeal the 500 jump requirement for people to be Tandem Masters.


theres another straw man again..

TM's have passengers, airlines have passengers, buses have passengers, all are commercial enterprises and so are and should be regulated differently from a sport particularly in ascpects that really only involve a single participant.. IE what you fly


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 20, 2003, 9:57 AM
Post #220 of 289 (885 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
theres another straw man again..

TM's have passengers, airlines have passengers, buses have passengers, all are commercial enterprises and so are and should be regulated differently from a sport particularly in ascpects that really only involve a single participant.. IE what you fly

You calling me skinny? Wink

Wait a cottin pickin minute. You jump in the same air I do. What you jump IS important to me since you could collide with me if it is beyond your ability to control yourself. It absolute IS my business.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 20, 2003, 10:10 AM
Post #221 of 289 (877 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
John, I completely disagree with everything you said. You say regulation doesn't help. I say it does. Look at the airlines. They strove to get 0 passenger deaths in a year by regulating training. It worked. So how can you say it won't work here? No, we don't need regulation to the level that the airlines have. That's silly. But there are things we can do in this sport to improve it and guide new jumpers. This BSR is one of them. We regulate that student must have RSLs and that other jumpers are encouraged to have them except in certain situations. Why is this so hard to conceive that a regulation can't help?

Well John, I guess you have your work cut out for you. Would you please do the statistics for fatalities for the past 10 years and tell us what percentage of canopy/landing fatalites were people under 500 jumps to how many over. Tell me that the percentage below 500 jumps is not higher than above 500 jumps and I will reverse my view.


1. I didn't say training and education wouldn't work. I didn;t even say regulation won't work. I said that this proposal is poorly constructed and shouldn't become a BSR because it may be attacking the wrong problem.

2. Every airline accident is minutely examined for cause. Regulations grew out of those examinations.

The proposed BSR does not have the same status - it has not come about on account of detailed examination of accident causes. Even your suggestion is inadequate, because you left wing loading out of the equation. The available stats from USPA don't include WL, so how can anyone say
that they know definitively that WL is the issue.

How would you feel about a new FAR based on the gut-feeling of some FAA bureaucrat that males under 30 shouldn't be airline captains? How do your 59 year old colleagues feel about the age 60 retirement rule that was based on no safety analysis?


Is someone really going to change canopy size every 100 jumps to go progressively to a 1.5WL at 500? Not a chance. People will simply make a large increase in WL when they get to 500 jumps, and maybe the fatalities will be moved around but not change. Maybe the BSR will encourage people like me (still happy at 1.4 at 1200 jumps) to downsize faster because 1.5 must be safe if it is enshrined that USPA says it's OK when you have 500 jumps. Maybe this BSR will actually increase fatalities - we just DON'T KNOW.

There are altogether too many unknowns with THIS proposal. It needs more work to become acceptable.


(This post was edited by kallend on Jun 20, 2003, 10:11 AM)


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jun 20, 2003, 10:11 AM
Post #222 of 289 (875 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
shouldnt we be wary of passing a rule that you dont want applied to EVERYONE? why is someone with 400 jumps @ 1.8 OK now but after the proposed BSR the next guy to get 400 jumps isnt??
For the same reason the guy with 200 jumps today is getting his D license and the guy who gets to 200 jumps next year will have to wait until he has 500.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 20, 2003, 10:13 AM
Post #223 of 289 (873 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>No, there are jump number rules AND other criteria.

What are the other criteria that allows an A licensed jumper to pull at 2000 feet, or requires a D licensed jumper to pull at 2500?

>So you'd like gun-toting security guards checking our canopy size
>before we board the plane?

Please take the games to rec.skydiving, if you prefer them to discussion.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 20, 2003, 10:14 AM
Post #224 of 289 (869 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
shouldnt we be wary of passing a rule that you dont want applied to EVERYONE? why is someone with 400 jumps @ 1.8 OK now but after the proposed BSR the next guy to get 400 jumps isnt??
For the same reason the guy with 200 jumps today is getting his D license and the guy who gets to 200 jumps next year will have to wait until he has 500.

The "D" license is just a piece of paper. What you can do with a "D" this year you will be able to do with a "C" next year, so in reality the jump number change is just cosmetic.


Ron

Jun 20, 2003, 10:19 AM
Post #225 of 289 (864 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
No, there are jump number rules AND other criteria.

What other criteria about pull altitudes?

Ron


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 20, 2003, 10:21 AM
Post #226 of 289 (979 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
theres another straw man again..

TM's have passengers, airlines have passengers, buses have passengers, all are commercial enterprises and so are and should be regulated differently from a sport particularly in ascpects that really only involve a single participant.. IE what you fly

You calling me skinny? Wink

Wait a cottin pickin minute. You jump in the same air I do. What you jump IS important to me since you could collide with me if it is beyond your ability to control yourself. It absolute IS my business.

so is what i drive..but i can go get that huge SUV, my dodge or a Ferrari and drive right next to you in the interstate without the additional licenses you need to be driving the school kids...its not a commercial enterprise. apples and oranges..

again recent unfortunate incidents aside, do the math and figure out what the % chance is of you being injured by another jumper on landing for any single jump...


Ron

Jun 20, 2003, 10:30 AM
Post #227 of 289 (973 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
shouldnt we be wary of passing a rule that you dont want applied to EVERYONE? why is someone with 400 jumps @
1.8 OK now but after the proposed BSR the next guy to get 400 jumps isnt??

Same thing Bytch said...plus When the Gov raised the drinking age..they grandfathered in those that already had the privileges....It would be wrong to make someone buy a new canopy just because...Are they at risk still? Yes, but the guy right under them is not.

In reply to:
what if the rule were written so that it applied to EVERYONE? ie Mr. 12,000 jumps has to pass the same skills test
that mr 300 does to fly the same wingloading??

would everyone still be for it??..even though it meant that they might take away the "toys" you feel its your right to
fly by virtue of jump numbers alone??

Sure cool!!! I can already qualify with any canopy I own for a PRO...I have already done it. This is my personal downsizing "test". Can I swoop where I want, carve it, and stop where I want? If not then I don't need another canopy.
Might be why I have 2,000 jumps on a Stiletto 107 at 1.7. And just started with a Velocity 96.

And I never said that jump #'s were the only sure way to rate someone....But its the best we have, and we use it now.

And the mr 300 jumps could always PROVE he can handle something smaller with a class and a TEST. Then can have it..Cool huh?

Ron


Ron

Jun 20, 2003, 10:34 AM
Post #228 of 289 (967 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
so is what i drive..but i can go get that huge SUV, my dodge or a Ferrari and drive right next to you in the
interstate without the additional licenses you need to be driving the school kids...its not a commercial enterprise.
apples and oranges..

Don't most states have a seperate permit for motorcycles?
Why? Because people were getting killed on them.


And the tandem argument is very good....Why don't you guys bitch about the 500 jump and 3 years for them?

Or the 6 hrs of freefall for AFF?

Or the 500 jumps to get a PRO?

Or the D to do larger demo's

Or Pull altitudes? After all its your body right?

Ron


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 20, 2003, 10:41 AM
Post #229 of 289 (964 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
No, there are jump number rules AND other criteria.

What other criteria about pull altitudes?

Ron

You don't get a license just on account of jump numbers where I jump. Pull altitudes are based on license level.

The whole issue of pull altitude is not relevant. Whether or not the pull altitude BSR is based on serious study or even saving lives is not at issue here. (Do we know for sure that the pull altitude BSR did anything, or was it the acceptance of the CYPRES that reduced low/no pull fatalities?). What's at issue is whether THIS proposed BSR will do any good or will it just piss off some low time jumpers who will downsize once they are out of its clutches and die anyway.


Ron

Jun 20, 2003, 10:49 AM
Post #230 of 289 (958 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The whole issue of pull altitude is not relevant.

Yes it is. There was a problem, and if was helped by a new BSR.

In reply to:
Whether or not the pull altitude BSR is based on serious study
or even saving lives is not at issue here.

Then why do you keep saying it was not done correctly?
No matter HOW it got put in it DID do good.

In reply to:
What's at issue is whether THIS
proposed BSR will do any good or will it just piss off some low time jumpers who will downsize once they are
out of its clutches and die anyway.

Well you don't have any proof it will not.
You don't have a better plan.
And I don't care if I piss someone off..You should know that by now. I am not after popularity..I am after safety.

Please PROVE it will not work.
Or COME UP with a BETTER plan.

Ron


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 20, 2003, 10:50 AM
Post #231 of 289 (958 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>You don't get a license just on account of jump numbers where I
>jump. Pull altitudes are based on license level.

Good point. So if we based this system of canopy loadings on licenses rather than pure jump numbers, would you support it?

>The whole issue of pull altitude is not relevant.

It is extremely relevant. You keep making the point that there has been no scientific study done to prove that restricting loadings based on experience will work. I put it to you that NO regulation in skydiving is based on scientific study of peer-reviewed research. Given that, a canopy loading BSR has as much scientific validity as any other BSR. If you therefore believe that therefore no BSR has any value, then fine - but say so, so we know where you're coming from.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 20, 2003, 11:11 AM
Post #232 of 289 (946 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
The whole issue of pull altitude is not relevant.

Yes it is. There was a problem, and if was helped by a new BSR.

In reply to:
Whether or not the pull altitude BSR is based on serious study
or even saving lives is not at issue here.

Then why do you keep saying it was not done correctly?
No matter HOW it got put in it DID do good.


I didn't say anything of the sort. Bill brought the subject up and I said I had no idea if it was done correctly or not.






In reply to:
What's at issue is whether THIS
proposed BSR will do any good or will it just piss off some low time jumpers who will downsize once they are
out of its clutches and die anyway.

Well you don't have any proof it will not.
You don't have a better plan.
And I don't care if I piss someone off..You should know that by now. I am not after popularity..I am after safety.

Please PROVE it will not work.
Or COME UP with a BETTER plan.

Ron
The onus is on you to prove your proposal will work, not on me to prove it won't. We don't, as a society, make regulations just because no-one can prove they are senseless.

You don't even have any numbers to indicate that people with <500 jumps and high wing loadings are dying at a rate more than would be expected by random chance based on the overall number of them in the population of active skydivers. You have no data at all in support of the suggested WL progression.

For every anecdote that you can quote of a low timer dying under a small canopy, I expect I can find one for a high timer, or a low timer dying under a large canopy.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 20, 2003, 11:12 AM
Post #233 of 289 (943 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>You don't get a license just on account of jump numbers where I
>jump. Pull altitudes are based on license level.

Good point. So if we based this system of canopy loadings on licenses rather than pure jump numbers, would you support it?

>The whole issue of pull altitude is not relevant.

It is extremely relevant. You keep making the point that there has been no scientific study done to prove that restricting loadings based on experience will work. I put it to you that NO regulation in skydiving is based on scientific study of peer-reviewed research. Given that, a canopy loading BSR has as much scientific validity as any other BSR. If you therefore believe that therefore no BSR has any value, then fine - but say so, so we know where you're coming from.

You are saying that because it was not done right in the old days, we shouldn't do it right in 2003?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 20, 2003, 11:19 AM
Post #234 of 289 (937 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>You are saying that because it was not done right in the old days, we
>shouldn't do it right in 2003?

No. I'm saying that performing peer reviewed scientific studies is not the way to 'do it right' in skydiving. It's not how the 300 way was designed. It's not how ram-air parachutes were designed. It's not how the AFF program was developed. It's not how S+TA's decide who to ground. They use their intuition, an intuition born of long experience, experience rooted in jumping over the years. I know, you have little respect for such experience, but it has stood our sport in good stead for many, many years. Smart people with experience, in general, make good decisions, even if they don't have PhD's, and even if they don't do statistical analyses of fatality trends.

There are several solutions to this problem. A few have been proposed. The cost of doing nothing is skydivers dying. The cost of a plan that's OK but not 100% effective is that it might be annoying to some jumpers (to exactly the jumpers that it attempts to keep from death BTW) while saving only half of them. That's a pretty good tradeoff in my mind - 5-10 fewer fatalities a year.

If your point is that we should come up with a good plan, I agree. If your point is that no skydiver has any sort of intuition that can predict who will die and who will not, and what will keep those people safer, then you're not in the same sport that I'm in.


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 20, 2003, 11:19 AM
Post #235 of 289 (937 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
so is what i drive..but i can go get that huge SUV, my dodge or a Ferrari and drive right next to you in the
interstate without the additional licenses you need to be driving the school kids...its not a commercial enterprise.
apples and oranges..

Don't most states have a seperate permit for motorcycles?
Why? Because people were getting killed on them.


And the tandem argument is very good....Why don't you guys bitch about the 500 jump and 3 years for them?

Or the 6 hrs of freefall for AFF?

Or the 500 jumps to get a PRO?

Or the D to do larger demo's

Or Pull altitudes? After all its your body right?

uh duh..no

thanks for building the straw pile larger..Wink

all of those involve passengers, students and/or specators, other peoples lives you are assuming responsibility for..just like the bus

motorcycles have a license because it a different skill set than an automobile but once you get your license for that vehicle you can ride ANY SIZE you wish...

can we put the strawman on the fire now?? hes done..


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 20, 2003, 11:34 AM
Post #236 of 289 (928 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>You are saying that because it was not done right in the old days, we
>shouldn't do it right in 2003?

No. I'm saying that performing peer reviewed scientific studies is not the way to 'do it right' in skydiving. It's not how the 300 way was designed. It's not how ram-air parachutes were designed. It's not how the AFF program was developed. It's not how S+TA's decide who to ground. They use their intuition, an intuition born of long experience, experience rooted in jumping over the years. I know, you have little respect for such experience, but it has stood our sport in good stead for many, many years. Smart people with experience, in general, make good decisions, even if they don't have PhD's, and even if they don't do statistical analyses of fatality trends.

There are several solutions to this problem. A few have been proposed. The cost of doing nothing is skydivers dying. The cost of a plan that's OK but not 100% effective is that it might be annoying to some jumpers (to exactly the jumpers that it attempts to keep from death BTW) while saving only half of them. That's a pretty good tradeoff in my mind - 5-10 fewer fatalities a year.

If your point is that we should come up with a good plan, I agree. If your point is that no skydiver has any sort of intuition that can predict who will die and who will not, and what will keep those people safer, then you're not in the same sport that I'm in.

Mandatory AADs will save lives too - and we have good data to back up that claim. Where do you propose to stop?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 20, 2003, 11:37 AM
Post #237 of 289 (924 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>Mandatory AADs will save lives too - and we have good data to back
>up that claim. Where do you propose to stop?

No pull fatalities are going down due to increasing voluntary use of AAD's. Under-good-canopy fatalities are going up due to inability to control small parachutes. Use regulation only where needed to have a significant impact on fatalities.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 20, 2003, 2:12 PM
Post #238 of 289 (905 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Mandatory AADs will save lives too - and we have good data to back
>up that claim. Where do you propose to stop?

No pull fatalities are going down due to increasing voluntary use of AAD's. Under-good-canopy fatalities are going up due to inability to control small parachutes. Use regulation only where needed to have a significant impact on fatalities.

It has to be the right regulation, and no-one has convinced me that this is the right one.


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 20, 2003, 2:22 PM
Post #239 of 289 (902 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
uh duh..no

thanks for building the straw pile larger

Your condescending tone is not appreciated and not helping this debate. These are serious people trying to do something serious for the sport. Let's all try to remember that we are all skydivers and we all hate seeing our brothers and sisters broken in a field. There are going to many answers to this question and an effort to educate along with regulate is probably the best answer. We need to do both in my book. Many schools have taken it seriously to give quality canopy control education while in early student status. Too many DZs have not.

Another analogy I'd like to point out from the world of aviation is that stunt pilots flying high performance acrobatic aircraft normally can only do them high off the ground. The airshows that you see where pilots doing acrobatics close the ground must have special permission from the FAA. When you fligh that high performance canopy in a high performance landing you are effectively doing an acrobatic manuever. What qualifies you to do that? A pocketbook?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 20, 2003, 2:22 PM
Post #240 of 289 (901 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>It has to be the right regulation, and no-one has convinced me that
>this is the right one.

I have posted an alternative in a different thread.


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 20, 2003, 2:24 PM
Post #241 of 289 (899 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Mandatory AADs will save lives too - and we have good data to back up that claim. Where do you propose to stop?

We act where we feel we need to act. In this case many feel we need to act. It's not a majority. But it isn't a small minority either.


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 20, 2003, 2:37 PM
Post #242 of 289 (891 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
uh duh..no

thanks for building the straw pile larger

Your condescending tone is not appreciated and not helping this debate.


understood but when i see the same argument misapplied again and again and with some nice condescention shots as well "its your body right?" i tend to argue in kind..

In reply to:
Another analogy I'd like to point out from the world of aviation is that stunt pilots flying high performance acrobatic aircraft normally can only do them high off the ground. The airshows that you see where pilots doing acrobatics close the ground must have special permission from the FAA. When you fligh that high performance canopy in a high performance landing you are effectively doing an acrobatic manuever. What qualifies you to do that? A pocketbook?

do you know if this is because to the proxmity to the ground (ie could you practice such manuevers over your own large private property?) or because to the large crowd of potential "victims" if you make a mistake. much the same as our current Demo regs?


Scrumpot  (D License)

Jun 20, 2003, 3:13 PM
Post #243 of 289 (881 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
do you know if this is because to the proxmity to the ground (ie could you practice such manuevers over your own large private property?) or because to the large crowd of potential "victims" if you make a mistake.

Acrobatic maneuvers are limited based upon their proximity to spectators & certain airspace, not by strictly AGL measurments I believe.

Chris would (or should) have better knowledge of the FAR's than I however.


Ron

Jun 21, 2003, 1:58 AM
Post #244 of 289 (864 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
motorcycles have a license because it a different skill set than an automobile but once you get your license for that
vehicle you can ride ANY SIZE you wish...

Not in TN....

You could get a <125cc license till you became old enough to get a regular motorcycle license.

Same thing here except we want to use experience insted of age.

Ron


Ron

Jun 21, 2003, 2:03 AM
Post #245 of 289 (863 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Acrobatic maneuvers are limited based upon their proximity to spectators & certain airspace, not by strictly
AGL measurments I believe.

There is a AGL limit...I think its 1500 feet, but I have not done any Acro in 7 years.

You are not allowed to do it lower even if you are over a large bit of your own land, and there is not even a cow there.

Ron


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 21, 2003, 2:12 AM
Post #246 of 289 (864 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

which, if true, and i do not doubt because i dont know means barnstorming and the mindset that sees its value is completely dead.

to me that is a sad thing. Frown


Ron

Jun 21, 2003, 4:46 AM
Post #247 of 289 (862 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Barn Storming is not dead..I had a friend of mine loop right into the ground by his house while his friends and wife watched about 3 years ago.

But a loop at 2000 feet takes the same amount of skill as a loop at 500 feet....just less cost for a screw up.

My old Acro instructor Billy Whitehurst use to say "Fly 3 mistakes high".

Ron


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 21, 2003, 4:51 AM
Post #248 of 289 (861 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
motorcycles have a license because it a different skill set than an automobile but once you get your license for that
vehicle you can ride ANY SIZE you wish...

Not in TN....

You could get a <125cc license till you became old enough to get a regular motorcycle license.

Same thing here except we want to use experience insted of age.

Ron

Maybe age is a better indicator of accident inducing behavior.


Ron

Jun 21, 2003, 5:29 AM
Post #249 of 289 (860 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Maybe age is a better indicator of accident inducing behavior.

Or maybe its experience? An 18 yo has been driving longer than a 16 yo.

And experience tells you to cut your risk taking...or at least approach it from a better angle.

Ron


tonyhathaway  (D 13263)

Jun 21, 2003, 3:06 PM
Post #250 of 289 (843 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

All of this talk about the low jump numbered people and regulating canopy sizes, MANY people who are over the 500 jumps shouldn't be on what they are jumping anyway. My parachute is a Spectre 7-cell 120 and I load it at a maximum of 1.5. (with any weight and or full camera setup) This, now-days is considered slow, big, conservative, whatever you want to call it. The reality is this parachute will allow me to do things that could kill me or anyone who may be under it if they are not landing it very close to the way, and direction it should be. This size,shape, and wing-loading, again, is considered light ESPECIALLY for my number of jumps. I have also noticed that I can't find anyone posting here that seems to think THEY need any sort of regulation. It's always someone else. Some have done canopy class, but few would ever admit they might not be as good at canopy control as they should be (I think these people are mostly flying faster parachutes) In the last 4.5 years, I have done over 5000 jumps on the SAME canopy make and model, I am still surprised every once in a while when I'm flying this parachute that I do something not quite right and have to flare a little quicker than normal, can't do a front riser turn because my set up isn't right, have to land farther out than I want, some of this comes from trying new things with it and I learn something more about the canopy-and I have A LOT of time under this particular model. Yes- I still try new things with it and learn new thing with that many jumps on it. Most people seem to have certain criteria to help them justify a size they want- for example: Can I land it in someones backyard? Most say yes but most would be screwed if they had to. I know I would if I ended up in the wrong backyard. Do you ever practice getting into a tight area? how low can you turn and how quick can you stop? I know sometimes it's uncool not to swoop but once you figure out you can be a good pilot and NOT swoop this may be a step toward everyone being better at flying around in a busy sky and a stable-unmoving ground. Take a good look at your ability, forget the ego, and in my opinion, many people are not willing to admit that they could screw up bad enough to kill themselves or someone else. --My faster canopy experience is about 600 jumps on a sabre 97, 1000 on a stiletto 97, then 2500 jumps on a stiletto 120, and the last 5000 on my spectre 120's. Am I way off here? -Tony


(This post was edited by tonyhathaway on Jun 21, 2003, 3:10 PM)


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jun 21, 2003, 5:36 PM
Post #251 of 289 (1066 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tonyhathaway] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I have also noticed that I can't find anyone posting here that seems to think THEY need any sort of regulation. It's always someone else. Some have done canopy class, but few would ever admit they might not be as good at canopy control as they should be
I'll stand up and admit that I'm not nearly as good at canopy control as I should be. Actually, I suck at canopy control. That's why I jump a 1.0 wingloaded Spectre and tend to land away from the main landing area.

I've got 900+ jumps and wouldn't have a problem with USPA limiting the wingloading or type of canopy I can jump.


Michele  (B 26874)

Jun 21, 2003, 6:36 PM
Post #252 of 289 (1059 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Actually, I suck at canopy control.
Gotta ask, then, Lis....why not take a canopy control class? Really curious, and no disrespect intended at all. But why not?

Ciels-
Michele


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jun 21, 2003, 7:00 PM
Post #253 of 289 (1056 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I have also noticed that I can't find anyone posting here that seems to think THEY need any sort of regulation. It's always someone else. Some have done canopy class, but few would ever admit they might not be as good at canopy control as they should be
I'll stand up and admit that I'm not nearly as good at canopy control as I should be. Actually, I suck at canopy control. That's why I jump a 1.0 wingloaded Spectre and tend to land away from the main landing area.
_________________________________________________
Didn't you just downsize from a 170 to 150 young lady? If you get hurt or worse its going to come down as a downsizing before you should have issue instead of just needs more training period type situation. Although I personaly have faith in you and know you will behave accordingly. You know as well as I do that all of our peers will slam our name without restraint if we hurt ourselves in a recent downsizing. Glen
_________________________________________________
I've got 900+ jumps and wouldn't have a problem with USPA limiting the wingloading or type of canopy I can jump.
________________________________________________
I would rather they tend to more pressing issues for my moneys worth thats all. Glen


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jun 21, 2003, 7:10 PM
Post #254 of 289 (1053 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Gotta ask, then, Lis....why not take a canopy control class?
Excuses... I was going to before the guys took off this month but ended up going on a trip with a whuffo friend. It's definitely in my plans for this summer, but now I have to wait for them to get off the road.

In reply to:
Didn't you just downsize from a 170 to 150 young lady?
Um, no. I upsized from a Safire 149 to a Spectre 170 when I got back in the air in 2002 after back surgery. I don't intend to downsize at all in the future (assuming that I don't lose those extra 20 pounds Wink).


Michele  (B 26874)

Jun 21, 2003, 7:13 PM
Post #255 of 289 (1052 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Excuses... I was going to before the guys took off this month but ended up going on a trip with a whuffo friend. It's definitely in my plans for this summer, but now I have to wait for them to get off the road.
Kewl. Funny but I had never asked you about that! LOL...glad to hear it's your intention...

Ciels-
Michele


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jun 21, 2003, 8:19 PM
Post #256 of 289 (1041 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Michele] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Excuses... I was going to before the guys took off this month but ended up going on a trip with a whuffo friend. It's definitely in my plans for this summer, but now I have to wait for them to get off the road.

Yes this can be a hurdle even here at our big DZ now imagine you are from a small isolated DZ. Seems we want to place restrictions with an option to out based on something there is no infrastructer for. Very dubious indeed.


wmw999  (D 6296)

Jun 21, 2003, 8:25 PM
Post #257 of 289 (1038 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

The other part of the "out" is the ability to have the local safety officer or I/E sign off (if they're competent to do so). Mainly because there are clubs where there isn't a class infrastructure.

And if there is no one more experienced to sign off, maybe the leading edge isn't the place for a candidate without a D license to be experimenting.

Wendy W.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jun 21, 2003, 8:26 PM
Post #258 of 289 (1035 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Yes this can be a hurdle even here at our big DZ now imagine you are from a small isolated DZ. Seems we want to place restrictions with an option to out based on something there is no infrastructer for. Very dubious indeed.
Several proposals have been made that provide for the creation of an infrastructure. If we already had qualified canopy control instructors/coaches at every dz in the US we wouldn't be having this debate.


Michele  (B 26874)

Jun 21, 2003, 8:34 PM
Post #259 of 289 (1031 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If we already had qualified canopy control instructors/coaches at every dz in the US we wouldn't be having this debate.
I don't think that's altogether true, Lisa.

Just because the coaches are available doesn't mean someone will take advantage of them and get the education. Look around at the larger DZs, and see what's happening whether or not the availability is present...

It's about accessing the education, I think. Not the availability, but the availing of it.

Glen has a point when he says the plan has an inherent flaw, and favors those who jump at a bigger DZ...and while Wendy rebuts it, what if the S&TA doesn't have the training and/or experience to sign off, and then signs off anyway (which might happen)? The person thinks he's fine to jump something, has it in his log book (or whatever) that he can, and then goes and lowturns in under a light wingloading...and the family goes and sues the S&TA and every other available person...

If there was a way around that, then I might be more in favor of it.

As it stands, I am strongly in favor of education...but how to make sure people get that is still mostly beyond me.

Ciels-
Michele

Ciels-
Michele


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jun 21, 2003, 8:42 PM
Post #260 of 289 (1029 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

 Several proposals have been made that provide for the creation of an infrastructure. If we already had qualified canopy control instructors/coaches at every dz in the US we wouldn't be having this debate. We do indeed have qualified instruction but not everyone has "extreme canopy experienced instruction". Billvon or anyone like him can teach some basic canopy life saving stuff. But if I want to surf like Heath I better hook up with him then. I 've seen a few of the "big dogs from the tour" taking some fine tuning courses from our jim and our boys and they had to travel to do it.
I would seek very specific training from clint if I was going to entertain any attempt at real swooping, nothing else would do, IMO.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jun 21, 2003, 8:47 PM
Post #261 of 289 (1026 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Michele] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It's about accessing the education, I think. Not the availability, but the availing of it.
Well, sure. But if it were already available at every dz a larger percentage of jumpers will take it. Making it mandatory for a particular license will assure that an even larger percentage of jumpers have taken it over time.

If it's not going to be required then we need to make getting canopy control education cool. I don't know how to do that.

In reply to:
what if the S&TA doesn't have the training and/or experience to sign off, and then signs off anyway (which might happen)?
That's why I like Derek's proposal to create a canopy instructor rating.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jun 21, 2003, 8:52 PM
Post #262 of 289 (1020 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
We do indeed have qualified instruction but not everyone has "extreme canopy experienced instruction". Billvon or anyone like him can teach some basic canopy life saving stuff. But if I want to surf like Heath I better hook up with him then. I 've seen a few of the "big dogs from the tour" taking some fine tuning courses from our jim and our boys and they had to travel to do it.
Back to another root of the problem - we have an ever increasing pool of talented "extreme" canopy pilots. Why isn't the information trickling down to other jumpers the way it does when you're learning RW or freeflying? How come you can get quality RW or freeflying coaching at (I'm estimating) 50% + of US dropzones but quality canopy control coaching - for everyone from just off student status to gonnabe swoop gods - is available at only a handful? How do we go about changing this situation?


Michele  (B 26874)

Jun 21, 2003, 8:56 PM
Post #263 of 289 (1019 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Well, sure. But if it were already available at every dz a larger percentage of jumpers will take it. Making it mandatory for a particular license will assure that an even larger percentage of jumpers have taken it over time.
In a recent poll I stuck up in Canopy Control forum, only 27% of the jumpers had taken the class. You yourself haven't yet (not picking at you, Lis, just making a point). And you're at one of the biggest DZ with the best instructors around...

It hasn't been made mandatory, and will not under some of the proposals I've seen here. It's a numbers thing...at 100 jumps, X is allowed. At 200 jumps, Y..300? Z...but not mandatory training classes. You'd have to meet certain requirements, but it you picked it up from someone without going through the training, is that the same thing?

Quote:
If it's not going to be required then we need to make getting canopy control education cool. I don't know how to do that.
By setting an example, by standing up and doing it...I have, to date, had 7 people tell me because of my talking about it, and doing it, they are taking a canopy control class. Yes, it was UNcool. You know what I dealt with. But there are at least 7 people who saw what the benefit was for me, and decided they could/should do it, too.

If it's mandatory, it is not about cool or uncool...and that's something I've spoken about for a bit now...

I understand what you're talking about, and I also clearly understand your intention. I am just not sure about the best way to go about it.

Ciels-
Michele


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jun 21, 2003, 9:00 PM
Post #264 of 289 (1016 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

That's why I like Derek's proposal to create a canopy instructor rating. You may create a canopy instructor rating but unless you clone someone who has developed clints delicate site picture its pretty much worthless to me. I've already sat in on a coversation from a couple of lads from an isolated DZ and watched the propagation of outright idiocy in regards to hp canopy flight. I have no dought that when JC went there he could have done much good, wonder how many took advantage of his visit.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 22, 2003, 4:00 PM
Post #265 of 289 (994 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

> You may create a canopy instructor rating but unless you clone someone >who has developed clints delicate site picture its pretty much worthless to me.

Not worthless at all. You may indeed not learn Clint's "delicate site picture" but if you learn the basics of not killing yourself under a HP canopy, that's 90% of the battle. If you can prevent that, you can learn on your own - or get Clint, your choice. It would be bad if people avoided canopy control training because they could not get the one instructor that they want to swoop like.


sducoach  (D License)

Jun 22, 2003, 5:29 PM
Post #266 of 289 (984 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Smile
Quote:
I was undecided at first, but the more I think about it the more firmly I come down in the "education" rather than "regulation" camp, mostly because you folks haven't made a convincing case for why your numbers are the right numbers except to say that Brian knows his stuff, nor have you come up with any kind of implementation or enforcement plan.

PS 1212 jumps, Stiletto 150 @1.4

Kallend,
I suggested the term "educate or regulate" some time back and it still stands true. As far as your comments concerning numbers my friend, all you need to do is go back 10-15 years and look at fatality causes. It moved from equipment problems to judgment problems. In days gone by you rarely saw an instructor in a fatality report simply due to the fact they regularly teach EMP's. Now you see all kind of rating holders busting themselves up due to poor training, education, or judgment.

Back to basics boys........... Educate or Regulate.

Blues,

J.E.

3200 jumps, Vengeance 107 @ 2.0:1
Stiletto 135 @ 1.6:1


sducoach  (D License)

Jun 22, 2003, 5:35 PM
Post #267 of 289 (979 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

WinkRon,
You are starting to argue just like BillyVon. He should be a politician as they can argue with anyone, fill a page full of unrelated comments, twist your questions into questions instead of answers, and they are always right.

One wise man once said..... "only a fool argues with a fool".

Educate or Regulate.

Blues,

J.E.


sducoach  (D License)

Jun 22, 2003, 5:51 PM
Post #268 of 289 (972 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

WinkChris,

You know as well as I do that we must educate or regulate. Mark's comments on speed, Bill's arguments on the space shuttle are all based upon a "frame of reference" that is known only by the person experiencing the situation. A shuttle pilot will feel like your RJ is a slow little pig flying around the sky while a C-182 pilot will feel like he's riding a rocket in your RJ.
How do we move peoples "frame of reference" without gaining experience the old fashion way? (Experience is something you gain AFTER you have survived a situation where you needed it.)

Educate.

Everything else is just an argument for education.

Blues,

J.E.


sducoach  (D License)

Jun 22, 2003, 5:57 PM
Post #269 of 289 (967 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Smile
Quote:
There are no such parameters. Canopy injuries and fatalities are not caused by lack of reaction time, they are caused by lack of skill.

This contradicts your point about the space shuttle, does it not?

As skill increases (through education) speed of execution, reaction time, does increase.

Blues,

J.E.

Sorry Mark...................


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 22, 2003, 7:40 PM
Post #270 of 289 (942 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sducoach] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Smile
Quote:
I was undecided at first, but the more I think about it the more firmly I come down in the "education" rather than "regulation" camp, mostly because you folks haven't made a convincing case for why your numbers are the right numbers except to say that Brian knows his stuff, nor have you come up with any kind of implementation or enforcement plan.

PS 1212 jumps, Stiletto 150 @1.4

Kallend,
I suggested the term "educate or regulate" some time back and it still stands true. As far as your comments concerning numbers my friend, all you need to do is go back 10-15 years and look at fatality causes. It moved from equipment problems to judgment problems. In days gone by you rarely saw an instructor in a fatality report simply due to the fact they regularly teach EMP's. Now you see all kind of rating holders busting themselves up due to poor training, education, or judgment.

Back to basics boys........... Educate or Regulate.

Blues,

J.E.

3200 jumps, Vengeance 107 @ 2.0:1
Stiletto 135 @ 1.6:1

I don't think that anywhere I have suggested that people are not killing themselves under perfectly good canopies - in fact on my own web site I have a graph showing fatality trends over the last 12 years that indicates this pretty clearly.

What I am arguing is that the proponents of regulation have not made the case that it's low-time jumpers under small canopies that are responsible for this trend, yet that is who their regulation is targeted at. My concern is that we will have a whole new layer of regulation with extra responsibilites stuck to DZOs and S&TAs, which may be targeting the wrong group entirely.


Rookie120  (D 22748)

Jun 22, 2003, 8:42 PM
Post #271 of 289 (927 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

1.8 W/L 550 Jumps


Ducky  (A License)

Jun 22, 2003, 10:30 PM
Post #272 of 289 (916 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Occasionaly Darwin should be allwoed to step in and take over.


kwak


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 22, 2003, 10:31 PM
Post #273 of 289 (915 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sducoach] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

>You are starting to argue just like BillyVon. He should be a politician as
> they can argue with anyone, fill a page full of unrelated comments, twist
> your questions into questions instead of answers, and they are always right.

Naah, if I was a politician I'd just agree with you, promise you that fatalities will go down and you won't have to do a thing, and then blame someone else when they don't.

>One wise man once said..... "only a fool argues with a fool".

Heh.

>Educate or Regulate.

It is not a choice between those two. Unfortunately sometimes it takes regulation to get education. I would like to believe that it doesn't, but I still have a feeling that no one would get wet water training if it wasn't required.


Samurai136  (D 26609)

Jun 22, 2003, 11:19 PM
Post #274 of 289 (911 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think a wingloading BSR is necessary. What problem is it really addressing?

The ISP specifically addresses canopy control.
If skydivers are making dangerous decisions flying/buying their canopy the S&TA ought to be taking some action. Seems to me that the education and regulation has been covered in the SIM.

Ken Flanagan
1.4 wl 470jumps
USPA coach, Senior Rigger


Ron

Jun 23, 2003, 4:29 AM
Post #275 of 289 (895 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tonyhathaway] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

All good points Tony....

Question for you...

If these people you see at 500-9,999 jumps took a canopy control class...Would it make them better?

If some of these people were on bigger canopies...would it make them safer?

If some of these people didn't downsize so fast...would they have learned more?

Ron


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jun 23, 2003, 7:15 AM
Post #276 of 289 (941 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ducky] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Occasionaly Darwin should be allwoed to step in and take over.
How many dead and/or injured jumpers do you consider to be "occasionally"? Six deaths a year? An injury just about every weekend across the US? That's where we're at right now.

Seen a landing accident yet? Visited a friend in the hospital after he had an unplanned titatium implant? Been to any funerals lately?


tonyhathaway  (D 13263)

Jun 23, 2003, 7:23 AM
Post #277 of 289 (939 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

As far as a canopy control class goes, I'm sure it would make anyone better. Information doesn't only trickle down, it goes up also. (this using the theory that people's version of "down" is higher jump numbers to lower) A perfect example of this is I have more jumps than any of the guys from the full-time PD swoop team, but I can learn WAY more from them than they could from me. Thats where #'s don't matter. Bigger parachutes may not be as fun as something small, but good landings no matter how boring are still more fun than bad landings that were exciting right before it went bad. By not downsizing too quickly you will learn more and that helps when going to other things. I think one definite advantage to having many jumps is not only skill that comes with it, but knowing the skill you don't have, and knowing that you may not be able to do everything you see someone else do. Knowing that if I started jumping that little 96 cross-braced canopy that I just might not be able to swoop like someone else who has jumped that parachute for the last 1000 jumps--even if they only have a fraction of the total jumps I have. If some people learned that earlier, they might not be ready to go to something else. --the last bit here is what I added with my edit-- Another example I know about is someone bought a vengeance because it is a swooping canopy and sold their spectre because it is not. Thats complete crap. If you can't swoop a spectre, you probably are not ready to swoop anything. (or whatever type you think you can't swoop so you need to get something else that you think you can-this case just happened to be the same as what I use)-Tony


(This post was edited by tonyhathaway on Jun 23, 2003, 7:39 AM)


Ron

Jun 23, 2003, 7:39 AM
Post #278 of 289 (931 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tonyhathaway] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think one definite advantage to having many jumps is not
only skill that comes with it, but knowing the skill you don't have, and knowing that you may not be able to
do everything you see someone else do.

And this is the major factor in why jump #'s is a good way to judge experience.

In reply to:
A perfect example of this is I have more jumps than any of the guys from the full-time PD swoop
team, but I can learn WAY more from them than they could from me. Thats where #'s don't matter.

And this is SKILL, not experience. If they jump 96's all day, yes they will swoop better than you if you have never jumped one. Jump #'s CAN give you skill, but they might not. Jump #'s WILL give you experience.

In reply to:
Knowing that if I started jumping that little 96 cross-braced
canopy that I just might not be able to swoop like someone else who has jumped that parachute for the
last 1000 jumps

Again experience tells you that even with WAY more jumps than some of them that you can't do what they do.

This is some of the experience that we are trying to let these new guys get before they get a tiny little canopy.

Tony, what is your take on this? Is there a problem with people getting highly loaded canopies before they have the knowledge,skill, and experience to handle them?

What would you suggest as a solution if you see a problem?

Ron


tonyhathaway  (D 13263)

Jun 23, 2003, 10:25 AM
Post #279 of 289 (920 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Tony, what is your take on this? Is there a problem with people getting highly loaded canopies before they have the knowledge,skill, and experience to handle them?

I would say yes. First of all, I am on the fence about some sort of regulation. As far as formal regulation from USPA, being in the BSR and such, that would help when one tells another that a certain parachute isn't right for them. Many times when someone is told a parachute isn't right for them or that they are going to hurt themselves on a parachute they take it as a blow to their ego and figure whoever is telling them that doesn't know what they are talking about. The one being told figures the one telling doesn't really know the skill of them. One could use that paperwork to show here is the BSR and tell them why that rule was written. What that rule would be is another whole debate. Rules only go so far. People without an a license can leave their AAD off, disconnect their RSL in the plane. They would have a harder time getting a canopy that they shouldn't necessarily be on, but they still could. I don't pull above 2000' because its a rule, I do because its a good idea. If I need to go below 2000' I do, even though I'm breaking the rules. I think gun control would be something to look at here. When used properly, a gun can be used for great fun, it can also be used to kill people. I'm all for people having guns, I just want people that have them to use them properly, and not hurt anyone in the process. I'm all for people having fast parachutes as long as they use them properly. The people who take canopy control classes seem to me to be the ones who don't necessarily need it. They are ones who acnowlege that they need some tips. The ones who don't take it, or especially don't listen to more experienced pilots on the DZ seem to be the ones who do. They think they either have it figured out, or don't need any help figuring it out. So to me, that becomes the issue. Generally the ones who need help don't listen. The ones that listen need some help also, but at least they take the constructive ctiticism and learn from it. I don't think you can change the mindset from the ones who won't listen. That being said, the only way to stop those is to keep them from jumping something. Again, this is why I'm on the fence. How would you enforce any rules? This seems to be to be going down the "you can have my parachute when you pry it from my cold dead hand" road like guns. I do think there is a problem, has been for a long time. I don't know the overall answer, but I would be that if most of the ones now dead from maybe being in over their head too quick would have listened from the beginning to ones telling them, they might not be dead. The last 3 or 4 to leave Z-Hills in a helicopter were warned, talked to, not in a confrontational way (not all anyway) but the wouldn't listen. What do you do about that? I think they all had over 500 jumps. People take it as gospel when a good 4-way person tells them how to do a knee turn. Why don't people take the word of a good canopy pilot??? Man why do I babble on so much? -Tony


sducoach  (D License)

Jun 23, 2003, 10:33 AM
Post #280 of 289 (915 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

WinkYa got my vote!!


Ron

Jun 23, 2003, 10:45 AM
Post #281 of 289 (910 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tonyhathaway] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
. As far as formal regulation
from USPA, being in the BSR and such, that would help when one tells another that a certain parachute isn't
right for them. Many times when someone is told a parachute isn't right for them or that they are going to
hurt themselves on a parachute they take it as a blow to their ego and figure whoever is telling them that
doesn't know what they are talking about. The one being told figures the one telling doesn't really know the
skill of them.

Yep..Or my personal favorite "You are just mad because I can do things you could not do a X number of jumps...cause I got mad skill baby...Yeah!!".

In reply to:
I don't pull above 2000' because its a rule, I do
because its a good idea. If I need to go below 2000' I do, even though I'm breaking the rules.

yes, you use *experience* to make this call...The problem is that the people this is targeted at don't have the experience,or the knowledge to make that call...They only think they do.

In reply to:
The people who take canopy control classes seem to me to be the ones who don't
necessarily need it.
This is the major issue with education without Regulation. They simply won't go to the classes. They don't think they need it.

In reply to:
The ones who don't take it, or
especially don't listen to more experienced pilots on the DZ seem to be the ones who do. They think they
either have it figured out, or don't need any help figuring it out. So to me, that becomes the issue.
Generally the ones who need help don't listen.

I agree.

In reply to:
I don't think you can change the mindset from the ones
who won't listen. That being said, the only way to stop those is to keep them from jumping something.
Again, this is why I'm on the fence. How would you enforce any rules?

But you can keep them from getting the high WL...As for how do you enforce it.

Well, you ground them. But the cool thing is the new students won't bitch about it since they didn't know other wise. It will be like how the new jumpers in a few years will think that it is normal that they can only do solos or jump with an Instructor or Coach till they get a license.

In reply to:
People take it as gospel when a good 4-way person tells them
how to do a knee turn. Why don't people take the word of a good canopy pilot???

That my friend is a damn good question.

In reply to:
Man why do I babble on
so much? -Tony

I've told you....its because you are old. Wink

Ron

For those that don't know Tony has over 10,000 jumps, and I respect him greatly...He is one of the people I listen to whenever he talks.


ChileRelleno  (D 24868)

Jun 23, 2003, 1:01 PM
Post #282 of 289 (893 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

WL @ 1:25:1, 330jumps.
Education not regulation... My education came from the school of hard landings i.e. shattered tib/fibBlush.


CJK  (B 2372)

Jun 23, 2003, 1:03 PM
Post #283 of 289 (890 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChileRelleno] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

1.44 @ 103 jumps AAD no RSL.

And now very troubled Unsure


PhillyKev

Jun 23, 2003, 1:16 PM
Post #284 of 289 (883 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CJK] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
1.44 @ 103 jumps

Ummm....yikes.


mds58

Jun 23, 2003, 1:18 PM
Post #285 of 289 (882 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

education and advise for regular jumper and ban for irresponsibles.
i have 200 with stiletto 120 wl 1.6
total jumps today 420


Ron

Jun 24, 2003, 5:51 AM
Post #286 of 289 (837 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChileRelleno] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Education not regulation... My education came from the school of hard landings i.e. shattered tib/fib.

What wingload and # of jumps did you tib/fib?

Ron


ChileRelleno  (D 24868)

Jun 24, 2003, 8:24 AM
Post #287 of 289 (820 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

1:25:1 @ 290 jumps


SuFantasma  (D 26267)

Jun 24, 2003, 12:49 PM
Post #288 of 289 (787 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

Lets see.... at 351 jumps the statistics are:

200 lbs - Birthday Suit (top load)
6 lbs - Birthday Suit Decorations (Shirt Pants Shoes)
2 lbs - Helmet + Altimeter + Google
8 lbs - Container + Dirt
7 lbs - Main Canopy
7 lbs - Reserve Canopy
1 lbs - Cypress
-----------
231 lbs Exit Weight

231 lbs / 170 ft^2 = ~1.356 lbs/ft^2Smile


Ducky  (A License)

Jun 26, 2003, 11:13 PM
Post #289 of 289 (742 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Wingload BSR [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Occasionaly Darwin should be allwoed to step in and take over.
How many dead and/or injured jumpers do you consider to be "occasionally"? Six deaths a year? An injury just about every weekend across the US? That's where we're at right now.

Seen a landing accident yet? Visited a friend in the hospital after he had an unplanned titatium implant? Been to any funerals lately?

Yes I have seen landing incidents, a fatality in fact. I am just realistic I suppose. Far too many of these incidents involve people whom rules and advice have no bearing upon.

kwak



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)