Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Wingload BSR

 

First page Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next page Last page  View All

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 18, 2003, 10:17 AM
Post #151 of 289 (1109 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 (1075 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 (1058 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 (1049 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 (1045 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 (1038 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 (1035 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 (1034 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 (1031 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 (1027 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 (1011 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 (999 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 (997 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 (989 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 (982 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 (963 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 (960 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 (956 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 (950 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 (946 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 (944 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 (934 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 (929 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 (924 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 (907 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.


First page Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)