Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Supporting data

 


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 25, 2003, 12:16 PM
Post #1 of 91 (2677 views)
Shortcut
Supporting data Can't Post

First off, here's my proposal again. See below for details.

A license (25 jumps) - 1 psf max
B license (50 jumps) - 1.1 psf max
C license (200 jumps) - 1.3 psf max
D license (500 jumps) - no limit

It is waiverable by an S+TA.
It does not apply if you take a canopy control course.
It does not apply if you already had that canopy when the restrictions go into effect.

Note that the biggest thrust of this regulation is not to regulate but to get people into canopy training courses. Lack of training, not lack of regulation, is what's killing people.

-----------------

This is what I could get from USPA and my own searches. Wing loading was not tracked before 2000, so much of the data is simply not there.

2001 35 deaths
Of those, 14 deaths were due to canopy control problems. 2 collision, 2 hit something or landed in water, 5 unintentional low turn, 5 intentional low turn. The 5 intentional low turn victims all had over 500 jumps. Of them, 3 were due to getting in the corner due to plain lack of skill; the other two were equipment failure and turbulence. The 5 unintentionals were:

39 1.16 Turn low to avoid power lines
70 1.21 Turned low; landed on the side of a hill in a turn
300 1.02 Demo jump; turned too low
4000 unknown Demo; not much known
170 1.5 Turned low while trying to land in a small off-DZ area

So in 2001, the restriction part of the BSR could have saved 3 lives, and the opt-out-training part of the BSR could have saved another 4. Total of 7.

2002 33 deaths
Of those, 7 intentional low turn, 2 unintentional low turn. 4 were pond swoop fatalities. None of the pond swoopers had any canopy training at all that anyone knew about, formal or informal.

Intentional low turn:

1500 ?? Pond swoop, drugs
700 1.7 Pond swoop attempt
404 ?? Recently downsized and had been warned several times
275 1.6* Pond swoop attempt
270 1.5? Recently downsized and had been warned (spaceland?)
170 1.4* Pond swoop attempt
161 1.4 90 degree turn to final; did not recover in time


201 1.12* Low turn to avoid power lines (zara)
135 1.0* Low turn to avoid a fence (coolidge)

* - not USPA stats; from web searches

So in 2002, the restriction part of the BSR could have definitely saved 3 and likely 5. The training part could have saved another 1. (I am assuming the drug involved fatality was caused by impairment not lack of training, although he had no training.) Total of 6.

So that's 13 people over 2 years whose deaths may have been prevented. 6.5 a year average.


freakydiver  (D 26421)

Jun 25, 2003, 1:46 PM
Post #2 of 91 (2606 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Just my thought seeing this trend in other higher risk sports...

"So that's 13 people over 2 years whose deaths may have been prevented. 6.5 a year average."

You are assuming that lower wingloadings would prevent these deaths from occuring. Maybe these people would still hook in their lower loaded canopies closer to the ground?

Just a thought.

But - I do like your ideas Bill - well thought out.


tombuch  (D 8514)

Jun 25, 2003, 1:53 PM
Post #3 of 91 (2597 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Great research! Thnks for making the effort. One of the big things missing in your numbers is injuries. I'm betting the same picture would emerge if we had good numbers on wing loading and injuries. A less loaded parachute allows more recovery and a greater margin for error, and that should equal not only fewer dead people, but fewer and less serious injuries.


Tom Buchanan
Author, JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy


frig

Jun 25, 2003, 1:57 PM
Post #4 of 91 (2595 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Why is there not more focus on the canopy control courses? I have seen a couple people with 200+ jumps routinely make bad decisions (and eventually get hurt) where their license# and jump# say they should be more experienced. I have also seen a few with 50-100 jumps with great canopy control and decisions. We have a written test for licensing, how about making a canopy test that requires an instructor to approve for licensing?


PhillyKev

Jun 25, 2003, 1:59 PM
Post #5 of 91 (2592 views)
Shortcut
Re: [frig] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Why is there not more focus on the canopy control courses? I have seen a couple people with 200+ jumps routinely make bad decisions (and eventually get hurt) where their license# and jump# say they should be more experienced. I have also seen a few with 50-100 jumps with great canopy control and decisions. We have a written test for licensing, how about making a canopy test that requires an instructor to approve for licensing?

That's what I was saying, but everyone thought that would be too hard to administer.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 25, 2003, 2:19 PM
Post #6 of 91 (2574 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakydiver] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

(freakydiver said)


>You are assuming that lower wingloadings would prevent these deaths from occuring.

Well, that's actually not the primary reason I see fatalities decreasing. Instead, I see the same people jumping the same loadings, just with more education. One of the assumptions that you have to make is that all these people will still want to jump these canopies; a large percentage of them will take a canopy control course since that's a way to get out from under the rules and still jump their highly loaded canopy.

So I'm making two assumptions. One is that education will reduce canopy fatalities, and I think that's a fair assumption. Two is that people are not hammering themselves on purpose; they hammer themselves because they screw up, and the same screwup will be more survivable if they are at a lower wingloading.

(tombuch said)

>One of the big things missing in your numbers is injuries.

Yep, and that's one of the things really frustrating Jim Crouch at USPA headquarters. According to comments on the renewal forms, 1275 skydivers needed medical attention in 2002 due to skydiving accidents. He only got 58 accident report forms. So they are simply not being reported.

(frig said)

>Why is there not more focus on the canopy control courses?

Uh, that's what my proposal is all about. The intent is to get people who want to jump small canopies at low experience levels into canopy control courses, not to restrict them to light loadings because light loadings are safer.


(This post was edited by billvon on Jun 25, 2003, 2:44 PM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jun 25, 2003, 2:31 PM
Post #7 of 91 (2567 views)
Shortcut
Re: [frig] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Why is there not more focus on the canopy control courses?

Becvause it isn't required and the people that really need don't believe they need it.

Hook


PhillyKev

Jun 25, 2003, 2:33 PM
Post #8 of 91 (2564 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

If the primary goal is to encourage people to seek training, what about really simplifying this and just making a requirement for a class and test for anyone to jump anything with 1.3 or higher wingload?


(This post was edited by PhillyKev on Jun 25, 2003, 2:34 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 25, 2003, 2:45 PM
Post #9 of 91 (2556 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhillyKev] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

>what about really simplifying this and just making a requirement for
> a class and test for anyone to jump anything with 1.3 or higher
> wingload?

Because forcing John LeBlanc to take a canopy control test would be silly. I think that people gain a better appreciation for risks as they progress through this sport, and thus greater restrictions should be placed on newer jumpers.


PhillyKev

Jun 25, 2003, 2:47 PM
Post #10 of 91 (2551 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

I would still grandfather in existing jumpers above that wingloading.

Quote:
I think that people gain a better appreciation for risks as they progress through this sport, and thus greater restrictions should be placed on newer jumpers

Ok, so how about 1.2?


freakydiver  (D 26421)

Jun 25, 2003, 2:58 PM
Post #11 of 91 (2540 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey I'm ALL FOR edumakation! It just the last time this thread got all hounded after, people just kept saying no.

Not really my point - point is I think you are right on. Education is the only way to do it up. I flew my Sabre 135 since 90 jumps WITH proper education the entire way through...


PhillyKev

Jun 25, 2003, 3:08 PM
Post #12 of 91 (2527 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhillyKev] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Actually, 1.2 isn't good because people will do that at 50 jumps and then they're free to downsize like mad. I think 1.3 is better. It should hit the targetted people. I don't think the brand new jumpers are the ones going too small, it's more along the lines of those between 100-200 jumps.

Along with any of these proposals that include education, there should be some guideliines as to what that should entail ala student training.


craddock  (D 999999)

Jun 25, 2003, 3:28 PM
Post #13 of 91 (2512 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So in 2001, the restriction part of the BSR could have saved 3 lives, and the opt-out-training part of the BSR could have saved another 4. Total of 7.
Key word is Could. I am sure Ron and skybytch will come on here and claim I think canopy control classes are bad but I will say this anyway.

About a month ago Scott Miller held a Canopy control class at one of my local dropzones. Of the 5 jumpers in the class, two of them broke a bone the following weekend. One broke an ankle and the other broke his femur in 2 places. A third jumper is an accident waiting to happen. I just got off the phone with my buddy who told me todays downwind(highwinds) flirtation with a fence. He has been advised to use a different landing area -since the course. I hope he does not get hurt but he does not listen very well. Took a few physics classes and knows everything about canopy flight.
Canopy training is a valuable asset for some, but that does not mean everyone can apply what they have learned. There are many teachers that are not as good as the students they are training. Look at the coach/athlete.
I also believe in risk compensation. I suppose it can be defined many ways and it may not really fit here, but in my mind it does.

Also is the S&TA going to be as likely to step in and ground someone who has done the training to opt out, or has 500 jumps but is in over his/her head if he feels the USPA has taken pressure off him for this duty?

Are we going to see an increase of jumpers getting smaller canopies after they have taken a canopy control course because it is now their right to do so?

Is NOT having a manatory canopy conrol class really a step in the right direction? Jumpers hitting 500 jumps who have obtained a D licence and downsizing
beyond their abilities. There are plenty of people out there now that have a D who have not meant the requirements.

Josh


(This post was edited by craddock on Jun 25, 2003, 3:33 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 25, 2003, 3:35 PM
Post #14 of 91 (2502 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

>About a month ago Scott Miller held a Canopy control class at one of
> my local dropzones. Of the 5 jumpers in the class, two of them
> broke a bone the following weekend. One broke an ankle and the
> other broke his femur in 2 places.

I've never taken Scott's class, but sounds to me like he might be emphasizing the wrong things. If I had lots of students screw up majorly after my FJC's, I'd get talked to about changing how I teach it.

>Also it the S&TA going to be as likely to step in and ground someone
> who has done the training to opt out or has 500 jumps but is in over
> his/her head if he feels the USPA has taken pressure off him for
> this duty?

In general they aren't doing this now; what would change?

>There are plenty of people out there now that have a D who have not
>meant the requirements.

Right, and there will be people who try to get around this rule as well (and many will succeed.) It will simply give most people more impetus to take canopy control courses, skew some jumpers towards larger canopies, and give DZO's / S+TA's ammunition with which to stop people who are on the road to serious injury or death. Like a pull altitude BSR, it will not _make_ people do the right thing, just provide a framework to help them do the right thing (and to help others enforce it.)


craddock  (D 999999)

Jun 25, 2003, 4:00 PM
Post #15 of 91 (2489 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
In general they aren't doing this now; what would change?

Are we really expected to hear the stories when someone is not allowed to jump? That does not make good headlines. I think it happens more than we hear about. I have seen it happen quite a bit. clearly it does not happen as much as some would like. When I started jumping other DZ's and people found out I had xxx # of jumps after seeing me throw 270's, the S&TA heard about it one way or another. More than once I was spoke to and then observed for a couple of jumps before they were comfortable letting me jump there. I am sure you never heard about those situations. I am not saying nothing is wrong, but to put a blanket statement that no one is doing it right; just to make a proposal fit is not right. It is the ones that I fear could stop once USPA takes some weight off of their shoulders.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 25, 2003, 4:11 PM
Post #16 of 91 (2475 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

??? You said that a canopy control plan would make it harder for S+TA's to ground people, i.e.

"Also is the S&TA going to be as likely to step in and ground someone who has done the training to opt out . . "

I said that doesn't happen very often even now. To refute it, you posted a story of how you _didn't_ get grounded? Not sure what your point is there.

S+TA's talk to people a lot. They make suggestions. They do this now. They will do it if my plan is implemented. That won't change.

>More than once I was spoke to and then observed for a couple of
> jumps before they were comfortable letting me jump there. I am
> sure you never heard about those situations.

Uh, I _was_ an S+TA and did just that. That's different than grounding people.


nathaniel

Jun 25, 2003, 4:31 PM
Post #17 of 91 (2467 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

thank you for shedding some light on the potential effects of education. I am starting to think that blanket education requirements are just as bad as blanket WL recommendations.

Here's a possible sequence of events

1. more canopy classes offered / required
2. leads to more people maxing out their canopy performance envelopes / absolute risk level increases
3. leads to more accidents

Education helps stop people under-estimating their risks, but it also helps stop people over-estimating their risks. When we say that education will lead to fewer accidents, we are saying that jumpers are consistently under-estimating their risks. I have seen no data to support this--interviewing only the injured doesn't count, it's a biased sampling method.

This is not to say that education isn't a good idea for other circumstances.

I honestly believe the problem with low-time high-WL is one of risk preferences -- education doesn't necessarily solve issues of risk preferences.

Here's another idea: how about subsidizing safe jumpers? Institute a 5+% USPA jump tax and give a USPA sponsored 5% discount on jump tickets to jumpers that haven't injured themselves in the last n years or m jumps. Next time your buddy with 100 jumps and a 1.7 WL thinks about hurting himself / herself s/he'll have another reason not to.

nathaniel


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 25, 2003, 4:36 PM
Post #18 of 91 (2460 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tombuch] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Great research! Thnks for making the effort. One of the big things missing in your numbers is injuries. I'm betting the same picture would emerge if we had good numbers on wing loading and injuries. A less loaded parachute allows more recovery and a greater margin for error, and that should equal not only fewer dead people, but fewer and less serious injuries.


Tom Buchanan
Author, JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy


Another thing missing is the a comparison with the total number of skydivers in each experience category. There is no way to know if the low experience group is actually at higher risk - maybe it's the high jump number skydivers who, proportionally, are killing themselves at a higher rate.


On the whole I like making canopy training a required part of the B-C-D license criteria, then the educational effect will filter up to all experience levels. The WL restriction rule will not necessarily have this effect. We see from Bill's analysis that people with lots of experience can quite effectively kill themselves too.


craddock  (D 999999)

Jun 25, 2003, 4:44 PM
Post #19 of 91 (2454 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
??? You said that a canopy control plan would make it harder for S+TA's to ground people, i.e.

No I did not say that. Your acting like Ron and Lisa.
I asked if it would. note the ? It was something to give people to think about. The second time I did say that "I feared" it, which I regretted right after I posted it. Even if I do fear it. It is a far cry from me saying it would.

Quote:
I said that doesn't happen very often even now. To refute it, you posted a story of how you _didn't_ get grounded? Not sure what your point is there.

My point is that at several DZ's they paid very close attention to make sure I could safely fly the canopy. I did not have many jumps but had been flying the 107 for a while and had no issues convincing them. I feel comfortable saying form the reaction before seeing me land it that they would have had no problem grounding me. My point is that they were doing the job you say they are not doing. They had no reason to ground me other than jump numbers and they were not even that low now that I think about it. Just an S&TA doing his job

I don't know mabey your right. They could have been all talk and no bark to ground someone. I should have used examples of others I have seen not allowed to jump.

At any rate I do believe they are doing the job more than we here. We usually only hear about it when there not.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 25, 2003, 4:44 PM
Post #20 of 91 (2454 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

>how about subsidizing safe jumpers? Institute a 5+% USPA jump tax
> and give a USPA sponsored 5% discount on jump tickets to jumpers
> that haven't injured themselves in the last n years or m jumps.

Nowadays, with new jumpers jumping 1.5 to 1 canopies, the very first mistake can put them in the hospital or the morgue. I think we'd feel pretty stupid giving jumpers a 5% safety discount on the jump they kill themselves on.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 25, 2003, 4:50 PM
Post #21 of 91 (2449 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

>My point is that they were doing the job you say they are not doing.

No, I was responding to your post in which you asked "is the S&TA going to be as likely to step in and ground someone who has done the training to opt out?" That's the job they are not doing now, at least to any large degree.

I did not say they are not doing any other job. If you really want to argue things I didn't say, argue about something interesting at least, like I'm against free beer and for mandatory anchovies on pizza. That'll really get people going.

>Just an S&TA doing his job.

Yep. Many S+TA's do a good job indeed giving advice.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jun 25, 2003, 4:50 PM
Post #22 of 91 (2449 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Your acting like Ron and Lisa.
Until I start saying "you're acting like craddock" to people who's posting style I disagree with, please refrain from doing the same about me.

A refresher of the forum rules may be enlightening.


sducoach  (D License)

Jun 25, 2003, 7:50 PM
Post #23 of 91 (2405 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

WinkAdvise on the DZ.C is free. There is a difference between value and worth.

Some times you just get what you pay for................

Blues,

J.E.


Ron

Jun 26, 2003, 5:39 AM
Post #24 of 91 (2356 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Key word is Could. I am sure Ron and skybytch will come on here and claim I think canopy control classes
are bad but I will say this anyway.

Nope...I have only pointed out your attitude...not challenged your comments.

I think that education is the key...but youre example shows that it is not the whole picture. Less experienced jumpers should not have high wingloads, unless they can PROVE they can ahdle them...

Which is why I like a test they have to pass, not just take a class.

And thats why I think they should be able to qualify for the PRO under the current canopy before they are allowed to downsize out side of the WL restrictions Germain came up with .

Ron


Ron

Jun 26, 2003, 5:43 AM
Post #25 of 91 (2352 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for posting this....It is better written than the one I have posted before.

I see 18%-19% possible "Save" rate....

If this were a buisness, it would of already been put in place.

Ron


craddock  (D 999999)

Jun 26, 2003, 6:06 AM
Post #26 of 91 (1426 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I think that education is the key...but youre example shows that it is not the whole picture. Less experienced jumpers should not have high wingloads, unless they can PROVE they can ahdle them...

Just for the record I said nothing about experience or wingloading of these jumpers. The jumper with busted femur has over 800 jumps I believe. Another is just a few jumps short of 500 according to his profile. Wingloading I am unsure but is not that high. Broken femur later says he knew he was over his head with the canopy.(something like that-I heard second hand)

Amyway I am unsure if your proposal would have made a difference, just looking at different angles


(This post was edited by craddock on Jun 26, 2003, 6:20 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 26, 2003, 7:03 AM
Post #27 of 91 (1411 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Thanks for posting this....It is better written than the one I have posted before.

I see 18%-19% possible "Save" rate....

If this were a buisness, it would of already been put in place.

Ron

By this reasoning you could have 100% save rate by allowing no-one to jump at higher than 0.5:1

100% return! If this were a business...


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 26, 2003, 7:12 AM
Post #28 of 91 (1407 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
By this reasoning you could have 100% save rate by allowing no-one to jump at higher than 0.5:1

100% return! If this were a business...

You forgot about Booth's Law #2.


Ron

Jun 26, 2003, 7:13 AM
Post #29 of 91 (1406 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
By this reasoning you could have 100% save rate by allowing no-one to jump at higher than 0.5:1

100% return! If this were a business...

And here you show that you are a teacher, not a buisness person.

100% is a dream that only happens in school.

18%-19% is a good return.

Welcome to the real world Dr. Kallend

Ron


freakydiver  (D 26421)

Jun 26, 2003, 7:31 AM
Post #30 of 91 (1392 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

"leads to more people maxing out their canopy performance envelopes"

Doubtful - I'd bet they overstep their ability level WAY before maxing out their performance envelopes. Also, education wouldn't stress how to get to the end of your performance envelope, it would stress how to be safe while trying to increase the envelope.


freakydiver  (D 26421)

Jun 26, 2003, 7:37 AM
Post #31 of 91 (1387 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

You all forget that we are dealing with human beings that are probably naturally attracted to some sort of level of danger/excitement therefore they skydive.

As diverdriver said = Booth's Law 2

"The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant."

I believe in my own mind that this directly applies to canopies as well. I'd be willing to bet as stated before, that restricting wingloadings will have no good effect on the skydiving population as a whole as people will still try to acheive the things that accomplished canopy pilots do. They will lie cheat and steal to obtain a canopy if they have to. They will try to hook their 1.3s in and screw up.


Vallerina  (C License)

Jun 26, 2003, 7:38 AM
Post #32 of 91 (1386 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
18%-19% is a good return.
What confidence interval does that lie in, though?

And, as everyone else, I would be very interested in seeing the statistics for injuries due to a WL which a jumper was not trained for.

I do see Kallend's point in not having enough data to correlate injuries with wing loading. Skydivers will moan and cry if they can't play with the shiny new toys, especially if you can't prove that they aren't ready for it.

I do agree that people downsize much too quickly, especially since I don't understand why they do it. I have no desire to do anything but jump lightly loaded canopies (I'm finally loading a canopy at 1.08 to 1 Laugh), so I don't understand why skydivers feel the need to downsize NOW instead of waiting 100-200 jumps down the road.

I see absolutely no problem with enforcing education, however. I see no problem with a skydiver having to perform all the tasks on Billvon's "list of things to do before downsizing" before getting their D license. It wouldn't be difficult to add on to the license requirements.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 26, 2003, 8:03 AM
Post #33 of 91 (1376 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
By this reasoning you could have 100% save rate by allowing no-one to jump at higher than 0.5:1

100% return! If this were a business...

And here you show that you are a teacher, not a buisness person.

100% is a dream that only happens in school.

18%-19% is a good return.

Welcome to the real world Dr. Kallend

Ron

In the real world a bunch of people died under apparently good canopies. You are making an UNPROVEN and UNWARRANTED assumption that those not fitting your WL/jump number criterion would have been saved had they followed your rule. I simply extended your UNPROVEN and UNWARRANTED assumption to a lower WL and higher jump number. If I am wrong, then so are you.

PS I ran a software business for 15 years. My return on investment was over 100%


Ron

Jun 26, 2003, 8:41 AM
Post #34 of 91 (1364 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In the real world a bunch of people died under apparently good canopies. You are making an UNPROVEN and
UNWARRANTED assumption that those not fitting your WL/jump number criterion would have been saved had
they followed your rule. I simply extended your UNPROVEN and UNWARRANTED assumption to a lower WL
and higher jump number. If I am wrong, then so are you.

I never said you were wrong...
Fact is that 15 years ago it was VERY rare to have a guy die under a good canopy.

So you are right, if we made everyone jump at less than 1 to 1 you are correct fatalities would drop.

However in the real world that is not very practical...So in theory it is correct in application it is not.

Why is it hard for you to admit that some people who have more experience than you, do have have better ideas than you do?

And as for the facts...well if I had them you would just claim that they are not the real numbers, or want another study done to prove the first set conclusive.

It would never end for you.

You are smart...I would think that you could see the trends.
But insted it seems you would rather bitch about the lack of paper facts than do anything...

I may not have your education, but I do have much more experience in relation to this. But I guess without the PHD I don't have a clue huh?

Ron


freakydiver  (D 26421)

Jun 26, 2003, 9:26 AM
Post #35 of 91 (1352 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Education is overrated. Experience is underrated.

Hey, perhaps that even relates to canopy flight as well. You can send a pilot to tons and tons of theory classes, but bottomline is they won't be able to put a puddle jumper down in the middle of Alaska until they've worked up to the point. BUT, most pilots realize their limitations because they are educated well (generalization here)...


Ron

Jun 26, 2003, 10:41 AM
Post #36 of 91 (1351 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakydiver] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Education is overrated. Experience is underrated.

Hey, perhaps that even relates to canopy flight as well. You can send a pilot to tons and tons of theory
classes, but bottomline is they won't be able to put a puddle jumper down in the middle of Alaska until
they've worked up to the point. BUT, most pilots realize their limitations because they are educated well
(generalization here)...

Thats why you need both...Education AND experience...You can get education many ways...But the ONLY way to get experience is to jump...You only get one landing per jump (If you are lucky) so the number of jumps you have can be used to judge basic experience.

Ron


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 26, 2003, 12:24 PM
Post #37 of 91 (1339 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

[reply
I may not have your education, but I do have much more experience in relation to this. But I guess without the PHD I don't have a clue huh?

Ron
You know, I don't go around telling people I have a PhD, maybe I should hire you as my agent since you're doing a great job.

As for experience - I jump at a DZ that probably puts its students out at the highest WL of anywhere in the world. I was jumping at over 1.1 by my 3rd solo jump, and at 1.3 by jump 12 - this is not untypical. The idea is that students get to downsize a modest amount while still under the eye of their instructor. Since it is a very busy DZ we have lots of experience doing this. If anywhere should illustrate this "problem" it would be SkydiveChicago.

While we have had several accidents at the DZ since this concept has been in place, not one of them involved a situation of a student or low time jumper at high WL. Not one.

Once again, the available data and experience at a DZ whose philosophy is opposite yours do not indicate any evidence that the low time high WL individual is at any more risk for dying under a good canopy than anyone else. I agree the data are inadequate for a decent analysis, but they are what we have.

There is indeed a canopy fatality problem, but I think you have misdiagnosed it and prescribed the wrong cure. Your WL BSR will delay downsizing until a time long after the student has instructor supervision, and right at the time they are starting to feel invincible. That, I believe, is the harm in your proposal.

The proper cure is a thorough revision of the licensing system to include a greater emphasis on canopy skills relevant to today's environment. This will improve the situation regardless of the underlying cause.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 26, 2003, 12:30 PM
Post #38 of 91 (1332 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

>While we have had several accidents at the DZ since this concept has
> been in place, not one of them involved a situation of a student or
> low time jumper at high WL. Not one.

That's because you have HP canopy training as part of your student training program. Your experience does not apply to most DZ's in the country; attempting to extend that experience to other DZ's isn't valid.

>The proper cure is a thorough revision of the licensing system to
> include a greater emphasis on canopy skills relevant to today's
> environment. This will improve the situation regardless of the
> underlying cause.

So you'd add HP canopy manuevers to the licensing structure, and require all jumpers (regardless of loading) to demonstrate them? What sort of manuevers, and at what loadings? Would demonstration at a low loading "qualify" someone to jump a high loading?


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 26, 2003, 12:49 PM
Post #39 of 91 (1326 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

John,

I don't think anyone said this BSR would say SDC could not continue with the current student training program. I think many (not all) see it as the way to go in canopy training for new jumpers. BUT....not every DZ has this and this is where people are getting hurt. Many of the suggestions here have said there would be an "opt out" program. Well, I happen to think that going through the program at SDC would qualify as that opt out clause. The ISP was supposed to bridge the gap between the old style AFF and take students to their A license under supervision like SDC's AFP program. Yet, the ISP got watered down and I don't hear of many people doing the canopy control training part of it either much. Not saying it doesn't happen. Just saying that I don't think many places teach it like SDC.

But just because you feel you had good training doesn't mean everyone is getting that same training. How many student programs have you been involved with other than SDC's? I have been ivolved with many just because of my travels. It's not done the same way as SDC so maybe outside of the SDC environment there are students that would benefit from a WL BSR while they go and get more training.

edited to add: Dang, Bill beat me to it.


(This post was edited by diverdriver on Jun 26, 2003, 12:50 PM)


AndyMan  (D 25698)

Jun 26, 2003, 1:04 PM
Post #40 of 91 (1317 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So you'd add HP canopy manuevers to the licensing structure, and require all jumpers (regardless of loading) to demonstrate them? What sort of manuevers, and at what loadings? Would demonstration at a low loading "qualify" someone to jump a high loading?

In the model where it's tied to the license, well - no. It wouldn't qualify someone for a higher wingloading as no qualification is necesary! People either get the licence or they don't.

Those who don't want to demonstrate the skills don't get the license, or if they don't want to demonstrate them they get a exempted license, like night jumps are done now.

A good starting point of demonstrated skills would be your own world famous list of "downsize" skills. Add in 90 and 180 degree front riser turns, and you've got a robust high performance canopy course.

The manuevers should be done under whatever canopy at whatever wingloading the jumper has then they go for the license.

_Am


(This post was edited by AndyMan on Jun 26, 2003, 1:05 PM)


craddock  (D 999999)

Jun 26, 2003, 1:04 PM
Post #41 of 91 (1317 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

I want to correct the numbers I used when reffering to the canopy control course and the accidents that followed. There was actually between 12-15 jumpers that took the class. There was actually three seperate classes which I was unaware. I was only there Saturday as I got rather beat up landing a bi-plane under a ... well nevermind.

I also did not realize that another jumper who broke his leg a couple of weeks ago had taken the course. He has about 1300 jumps. So of the three broken legs, all three had canopy training and two of them had more than 500 jumps. We still have that other one that is not out of the woods yet.

I only bring this up as BillVon indicated by looking at the fatality reports that X number of fatalities could have been prevented with proper training and/or wingloading restrictions. And yes it could have. Or not. One could theorize from my small sample group that it could cause more accidents.


(This post was edited by craddock on Jun 26, 2003, 2:42 PM)


Ron

Jun 26, 2003, 1:08 PM
Post #42 of 91 (1309 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You know, I don't go around telling people I have a PhD, maybe I should hire you as my agent since you're
doing a great job.

60,000 a year with flight benefits, set my own schedule...I'm yours.

In reply to:
As for experience - I jump at a DZ that probably puts its students out at the highest WL of anywhere in the
world. I was jumping at over 1.1 by my 3rd solo jump, and at 1.3 by jump 12 - this is not untypical. The
idea is that students get to downsize a modest amount while still under the eye of their instructor. Since it
is a very busy DZ we have lots of experience doing this. If anywhere should illustrate this "problem" it would
be SkydiveChicago.

Nope, because you get taught from step one. Not ALL DZ's do this...In fact most don't. Roger was ahead of the curve...

Problem is that not EVERY place does this...
And the USPA can't even get the ISP everywhere....
Not every place has the level of instructors to teach this...

In reply to:
Once again, the available data and experience at a DZ whose philosophy is opposite yours do not indicate
any evidence that the low time high WL individual is at any more risk for dying under a good canopy than
anyone else. I agree the data are inadequate for a decent analysis, but they are what we have.

Get away from Rogers place...Look at ALL the DZ's in the US.
Roger had a very advanced program...Again not ALL DZ have it. Nor will they even if the USPA tries to make it so...Check the ISP.

In reply to:
There is indeed a canopy fatality problem, but I think you have misdiagnosed it and prescribed the wrong
cure.

Check the fatality reports...way to many people under HP canopies...Maybe not at SDC..But all over the US.

In reply to:
Your WL BSR will delay downsizing until a time long after the student has instructor supervision, and
right at the time they are starting to feel invincible. That, I believe, is the harm in your proposal.

Well they are downsizing now with almost no supervision any way... And WAY before they have the experience to do it. Not at the wonderland that is SDC...But ALL over the US.

All of the dead guys didn't think they would get killed.

And if SDC is so good at canopy flight...Why have there been so many canopy collisions? I can only think of ONE in the state of FL. in the past year...So even WITH education...shit happens.

In reply to:
The proper cure is a thorough revision of the licensing system to include a greater emphasis on canopy skills
relevant to today's environment. This will improve the situation regardless of the underlying cause.

Oh my god John...we agree on something. How the hell did this happen? What can we do to prevent us from agreeing again?

However, how do you plan to make the ones that need it take the classes? USPA can't even make all the DZ's do the ISP.
Not everywhere has that level of instruction.

The WL BSR would MAKE the ones that want to go faster than the "normal" progression SHOW that they can handle it...If they can do it without the classes great..If they have to take the classes ot learn it..Better.

But I would make them PROVE they can do it, not just take a class.

And John, you should know this better than me...Just because someone takes a class...even if it was taught very well...Does not mean they will learn.

The Regulation would protect these jumpers, atleast for a while.

Would you agree to a WL to LICENSE structure more?
WITH performance based tests?

But then we get into the people like you that don't hook, but need a "D" to compete. Should you HAVE to learn how to hook?

The other program does not make people learn anything they don't want to. If you make it part of the license structure...you start making people do things they don't want to do.

You COULD make it like a HP endorsment for an airplane...You want to fly higher than 1.3 or so you need the endorsment..I could get behind that.

But it does not take into the fact that people CAN learn how to fly HP on their own if they can get the experience. Germains table does take that into account.

Ron


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jun 26, 2003, 2:03 PM
Post #43 of 91 (1292 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
As for experience-

Didn't you say: "You assume so based on your "experience". Experienced folks once clained the Earth was flat, that heavier than air machines would never fly, and that no use would ever be found for the study of radioactivity (among other things)."

So if experience works in your favor, you use it. If experience works against you, you discount and attack it.

Anyway, since you brought up your experience, how many students have you taught canopy control to? Are you an Instructor? Coach?

Quote:
I jump at a DZ that probably puts its students out at the highest WL of anywhere in the world. I was jumping at over 1.1 by my 3rd solo jump, and at 1.3 by jump 12 - this is not untypical. The idea is that students get to downsize a modest amount while still under the eye of their instructor. Since it is a very busy DZ we have lots of experience doing this. If anywhere should illustrate this "problem" it would be SkydiveChicago.

The idea of the proposed BSR is the same, downsizing a modest amount under the supervision of an Instructor., but it doesn't stop at the "A" license. The problem isn't students, it the jumper with 120 jumps under the Stiletto 135 at 1.4:1.

Quote:
While we have had several accidents at the DZ since this concept has been in place, not one of them involved a situation of a student or low time jumper at high WL. Not one.

Not one????? Not to harsh on Skydive Chicago, which I think is a great, safe DZ, but to counter your point;

"7/9/2001 Skydive Chicago, IL # Jumps: 50

Description: Best guess is that this jumper deployed extremely low, and then had her CYPRES-fired reserve entangle with her snivelling/malfunctioned main. She managed a cutaway somewhere below 250', but it failed to improve the situation. The prior weekend, she had been chastised for pulling too low, and otherwise taking too many chances. She was jumping a Safire 130-ish, at a wing-loading of around 1.1 lb/ft^2."

"10/14/2001 Skydive Chicago, IL # Jumps: 70

Description: Breakoff on this routine 6-way skydive came at 4500, with most participants fully deployed by 2000. This jumper was observed in a spinning configuration until a low cutaway at 150-250'. The reserve was deployed, but the slider was found right at the canopy. The main was found with one brake unstowed; this may have caused or exacerbated the malfunction. Ground witnesses report main deployment was at or above 2000.

USPA Conclusions: As with most fatalities, this one resulted after a series of mis-steps and not just one isolated error or problem. First, the skydiver was jumping an elliptical canopy, many of which are often associated with more violent malfunctions than more rectangular planforms.If one brake releases prior to or during opening, the resulting spin sometimes causes a line twist, which may or may not be recoverable in the remaining altitude. Second, the jumper's wing loading was calculated at 1.26:1, which the manufacturer considers acceptable for an advanced to expert canopy pilot. Yet, this jumper had only 80 jumps.Third, he deployed the main parachute at least 1,000 feet lower than USPA requires for an A-license holder, who, according to the USPA Basic Safety Requirments, must initiate deployment by 3,000 feet"

Quote:
Once again, the available data and experience at a DZ whose philosophy is opposite yours do not indicate any evidence that the low time high WL individual is at any more risk for dying under a good canopy than anyone else. I agree the data are inadequate for a decent analysis, but they are what we have.

So now that lack of data means that there isn't a problem? If there is no data regarding incidents from pulling low, then there isn't a problem and the minimum pull altitude BSR's should be repealed?

Quote:
There is indeed a canopy fatality problem, but I think you have misdiagnosed it and prescribed the wrong cure. Your WL BSR will delay downsizing until a time long after the student has instructor supervision, and right at the time they are starting to feel invincible. That, I believe, is the harm in your proposal.


You say we have misdiagnosed the canopy problem, (at least you admit there is a problem, even without hard data to support that) , so what do you feel is the diagnosis? Again, the idea of the proposed BSR is the same, downsizing a modest amount under the supervision of an Instructor, but it doesn't stop at the "A" license. It won't delay downsizing unless the jumper can't handle the smaller canopy, which is good. It will require additional canopy training for each license, from an Instructor, which is good. And if someone desires to downsize faster than recommended they will either have to prove they have the ability, or get additional canopy training from an Instructor. Your concern is that people will downsize while not under the supervision of an Instructor, they are doing that now, under the proposed BSR, they will downsize with more training or under supervision. The proposed BSR addresses your concerns.

Quote:
The proper cure is a thorough revision of the licensing system to include a greater emphasis on canopy skills relevant to today's environment. This will improve the situation regardless of the underlying cause.

That is in the proposed BSR.

Hook


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 26, 2003, 3:28 PM
Post #44 of 91 (1271 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
As for experience-

Didn't you say: "You assume so based on your "experience". Experienced folks once clained the Earth was flat, that heavier than air machines would never fly, and that no use would ever be found for the study of radioactivity (among other things)."

So if experience works in your favor, you use it. If experience works against you, you discount and attack it.

Ron asked, so I responded. I still maintain that people who just claim "experience" to compensate for no data are full of baloney.


In reply to:
Anyway, since you brought up your experience, how many students have you taught canopy control to? Are you an Instructor? Coach?

Nope - just a trained observer.

In reply to:


Quote:
I jump at a DZ that probably puts its students out at the highest WL of anywhere in the world. I was jumping at over 1.1 by my 3rd solo jump, and at 1.3 by jump 12 - this is not untypical. The idea is that students get to downsize a modest amount while still under the eye of their instructor. Since it is a very busy DZ we have lots of experience doing this. If anywhere should illustrate this "problem" it would be SkydiveChicago.

The idea of the proposed BSR is the same, downsizing a modest amount under the supervision of an Instructor., but it doesn't stop at the "A" license. The problem isn't students, it the jumper with 120 jumps under the Stiletto 135 at 1.4:1.

Quote:
While we have had several accidents at the DZ since this concept has been in place, not one of them involved a situation of a student or low time jumper at high WL. Not one.

Not one????? Not to harsh on Skydive Chicago, which I think is a great, safe DZ, but to counter your point;

details snipped

I thought we were dealing with canopy control, not low pulls or emergency procedures.

In reply to:

Quote:
Once again, the available data and experience at a DZ whose philosophy is opposite yours do not indicate any evidence that the low time high WL individual is at any more risk for dying under a good canopy than anyone else. I agree the data are inadequate for a decent analysis, but they are what we have.

So now that lack of data means that there isn't a problem? If there is no data regarding incidents from pulling low, then there isn't a problem and the minimum pull altitude BSR's should be repealed?

There are lots of data about pulling low. The SSK web site has a whole bunch, for instance. Gary Peek's site has lots of info about canopy opening behavior. Your continual harping on low pull issues is just a smokescreen.


In reply to:
Quote:
There is indeed a canopy fatality problem, but I think you have misdiagnosed it and prescribed the wrong cure. Your WL BSR will delay downsizing until a time long after the student has instructor supervision, and right at the time they are starting to feel invincible. That, I believe, is the harm in your proposal.


You say we have misdiagnosed the canopy problem, (at least you admit there is a problem, even without hard data to support that) ,

Don't be ridiculous - there are lots of data to indicate a canopy problem, I even have some posted on my own web site.

There are no data that say low time jumpers at high WL are dying at a rate greater than their numbers in the skydiving population would suggest, though.

In reply to:
so what do you feel is the diagnosis? Again, the idea of the proposed BSR is the same, downsizing a modest amount under the supervision of an Instructor, but it doesn't stop at the "A" license. It won't delay downsizing unless the jumper can't handle the smaller canopy, which is good. It will require additional canopy training for each license, from an Instructor, which is good. And if someone desires to downsize faster than recommended they will either have to prove they have the ability, or get additional canopy training from an Instructor. Your concern is that people will downsize while not under the supervision of an Instructor, they are doing that now, under the proposed BSR, they will downsize with more training or under supervision. The proposed BSR addresses your concerns.

Quote:
The proper cure is a thorough revision of the licensing system to include a greater emphasis on canopy skills relevant to today's environment. This will improve the situation regardless of the underlying cause.

That is in the proposed BSR.

Hook


Yes, along with an unenforcible WL rule that can't be justified. If you could justify it, you would. Instead you throw up a smokescreen about the pull altitude rules every time you're asked.

I already told you my diagnosis.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jun 26, 2003, 3:53 PM
Post #45 of 91 (1266 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
There are lots of data about pulling low. The SSK web site has a whole bunch, for instance. Gary Peek's site has lots of info about canopy opening behavior. Your continual harping on low pull issues is just a smokescreen.

No, not a smoke screen. It is a parallel to the debate. The SSK site lists Cypres fires. How many of those fires would the jumper have walked away if the Cypres hadn't been in their reserve container? They would hve only opened low? This is the same argument you used about how many of the incidents would have happened anyway if the jumper had been at a lower wing loading. We can debate this all day long, but all we have is the experience of jumpers that have been around to different DZ's and have been dealing with the problem for quite a while. If you don't believe that I am correct in my diagnosis of the problem, then I don't think there is anything I can say that would convince you. You sure can't convince me that I am wrong about the diagnosis. I have seen it.

You say there isn't enough data to support my (our) claim that the problem is not enough experience and education and too high of a wing loading. The same argument can be used against the minimum pull altitude BSR's.

Quote:
Nope - just a trained observer.

We have observed different things then. I have taught AFP. I have seen the difference it makes. I wholeheartedly endorse the program. Very few DZ's use it and few DZ's use the ISP. Because it isn't mandatory, not because it isn't better.

Quote:
Yes, along with an unenforcible WL rule that can't be justified. If you could justify it, you would. Instead you throw up a smokescreen about the pull altitude rules every time you're asked.

Again, it would only have to be enforced for the small percentage of jumpers that choose to break it. It can be enforced the same way pull altitude BSR's are enforced. It isn't a perfect solution, but I believe it is the best solution we have.

Justification: Others and my experience, S & TA's, Instructors, etc. We have a different perspective on the problem. I am not against high wing loading, obviously. But people need the education and training. It is available, but people are not going and getting it and they are getting injured because they are not armed with it. As mentioned in another thread, mandatory incident reporting was torpedoed in the last NPRM for part 105. It is undeniable that people are hammering in because they are in over their heads with their canopy. They will not seek out further training and education unless it is mandatory. The BSR will eventually affect every jumper in the U.S., making him or her safer.

I think we are making progress. I think you are in agreement with the adding more canopy control education and training requirements to the "B", "C", and "D" licenses part of the proposed BSR. And you only oppose a wing loading restriction based on licenses with the option to test out, be waived, or receive additional education and training to exceed the wing loading limitations. Is this correct?

Hook


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 26, 2003, 4:08 PM
Post #46 of 91 (1261 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Thanks for posting this....It is better written than the one I have posted before.

I see 18%-19% possible "Save" rate....

If this were a buisness, it would of already been put in place.

no a business WOULD take the time to do a formal study and the math to go along with it, businesses fail by making hasty decisions, even if they "seem" correct in the experience of people in the field...

i'd be interested to see the rest of the numbers you used to come up with any "save rate" since i think your (as is everyone else on either side, since they havent been gathered) missing a few very important factors for that kind of calculation

otherwise it falls into the "made up on the spot" statistics..which just isnt very useful to anyone..


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 26, 2003, 4:12 PM
Post #47 of 91 (1260 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think we are making progress. I think you are in agreement with the adding more canopy control education and training requirements to the "B", "C", and "D" licenses part of the proposed BSR.
I said that about a week ago when this series of threads started. I have always been in favor of more canopy control in the license criteria; I wrote about it about three years ago on rec.skydiving (when that was still a useful forum).

In reply to:
And you only oppose a wing loading restriction based on licenses with the option to test out, be waived, or receive additional education and training to exceed the wing loading limitations. Is this correct?

Hook

I think the WL rule may turn out to be counter productive. Delaying unrestricted WLs to the point where a jumper is feeling invincible (happens around 300 - 600 jumps, right) could be an invitation to disaster. It also provides an "out" to avoid the further training that IMHO is absolutely necessary.
Nor does it deal with someone with poor skills (visual/motor) who nevertheless achieves 500 jumps. Essentially you are saying to this guy "It's OK to jump that Velocity now, you have the necessary experience".


Finally - it simply doesn't fit in the general philosophy of a progressive series of licenses granting additional privileges as you demonstrate skills (in addtion to accumulating jump numbers). I didn't get my "D" at 200 jumps, because I still hadn't completed the accuracy requirement... that was quite fair.


Ron

Jun 27, 2003, 4:09 AM
Post #48 of 91 (1228 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
no a business WOULD take the time to do a formal study and the math to go along with it, businesses fail by
making hasty decisions, even if they "seem" correct in the experience of people in the field...

i'd be interested to see the rest of the numbers you used to come up with any "save rate" since i think your (as is
everyone else on either side, since they havent been gathered) missing a few very important factors for that kind
of calculation

Zen get off of it.

There are numbers...they show a problem.
If a buisness spends all its time trying to get the whole picture..many times they go out of buisness waiting.


Ron

Jun 27, 2003, 4:12 AM
Post #49 of 91 (1227 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Quote:
While we have had several accidents at the DZ since this concept has been in place, not one of
them involved a situation of a student or low time jumper at high WL. Not one.



Not one????? Not to harsh on Skydive Chicago, which I think is a great, safe DZ, but to counter your
point;

And if SDC is so good at canopy flight...Why have there been so many canopy collisions? I can only
think of ONE in the state of FL. in the past year...So even WITH education...shit happens.

Care to explain that one John?

In reply to:
There are no data that say low time jumpers at high WL are dying at a rate greater than their numbers
in the skydiving population would suggest, though.

what about the fact that the jump #'s for people dying under good canopies is moving down every year?

That not enough info for ya?


(This post was edited by Ron on Jun 27, 2003, 4:14 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 27, 2003, 5:55 AM
Post #50 of 91 (1219 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
While we have had several accidents at the DZ since this concept has been in place, not one of
them involved a situation of a student or low time jumper at high WL. Not one.



Not one????? Not to harsh on Skydive Chicago, which I think is a great, safe DZ, but to counter your
point;

And if SDC is so good at canopy flight...Why have there been so many canopy collisions? I can only
think of ONE in the state of FL. in the past year...So even WITH education...shit happens.

Care to explain that one John?

One collision fatality had 9000 jumps (and the other jumper had 2200). The other collision double fatality involved someone with >900 jumps hitting someone with about 200, and both were on lightly loaded canopies. Only one of the four was trained at SDC. Care to explain how your proposed BSR would affect these?


Vallerina  (C License)

Jun 27, 2003, 6:19 AM
Post #51 of 91 (1387 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
While we have had several accidents at the DZ since this concept has been in place, not one of them involved a situation of a student or low time jumper at high WL. Not one.
This might come off as a dz bashing thing, but it's not. It's more of a "even with the best training in the world, stuff can still happen" thing. While your dz may not have incurred incidents as such, skydivers trained at your dz have had accidents involving too high of wingloading elsewhere. I understand that the canopy training at sdc is superb, but "education" often times isn't enough for those slow to learn (I think this is where the experience factor comes into play.)


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 27, 2003, 10:15 AM
Post #52 of 91 (1353 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There are numbers...they show a problem.
If a buisness spends all its time trying to get the whole picture..many times they go out of buisness waiting.

are there? where? do they REALLY show a PROBLEM??

see the issue is you havent even defined your problem very well yet and your already at the "this is the solution" stage..

i think we can all agree about the GOAL, reduction of injuries/fatalities under highly loaded wings (or any wings at all really)

now define reduction? how many is an acceptable number? We have to know how many total jumps are being made to determine that..

we also should find out how many people are/have been successfully flying highly loaded canopies "in violation" of the proposed BSR. This determines IF there is an EXCESSIVE number of injuries in comparison with the number of jumps being made..

until you have a baseline to compare to you have no frame of reference to tell if 10 per 1000 is to many or if 10 per 10,000 is excessively low.

the number of injuries/fatalities should increase as a proportion of the number of jumps being made. This is expected. People make mistakes and hurt themselves when they do, barring the total banning of the sport people will still die while skydiving, no matter how much experience and training they have..

what it is essential to determine is are they being injured at a rate out of proportion to the increase in total jumps and the increase in jumps of HP canopies? Also (roughly) how many lives could conceivably be saved in relation to the number of jumpers who would be unnecessarily (because they have been successfully flying wings the proposed BSR says they shouldnt) restricted in their progression

the option to test out is a must, but you have to weigh the time and expense to do so as well against the possible reduction of injuries to determine how involved and at what levels it would best be applied. I think we are getting closer to workable, realistic guidelines but asking 100 people to jump thru hoops to prove they can do something that 2 cannot is regulatory overkill, and we dont have the data yet to determine where we are

so yes it is necessary to gather more information before making any hasty regulations, only by accurately defining the problem can you find the best solution and we should always strive for the best solution even if that means pausing to collect data at the cost of a few lives, lives that have freely chosen to take the risks they do

how many injuries per year is acceptable?
How many per license group? (if that is how we define who needs what training)
What % of HP canopy jumps currently end in injury? How many of that % (more important than just straight numbers) could have been prevented by the proposed reg? (and equally important) what % of those successful HP canopy jumps would have been prevented (been illegal) by the reg?

I am certainly not against any regulation, but we need to take the time necessary to ensure we enact the best, most effective, and most flexible regulation that accomplishes that goal..

And of course we must accurately define the goal in order to do so.. even if that means collecting more data first..


Ron

Jun 27, 2003, 11:41 AM
Post #53 of 91 (1337 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
One collision fatality had 9000 jumps (and the other jumper had 2200). The other collision double fatality
involved someone with >900 jumps hitting someone with about 200, and both were on lightly loaded
canopies. Only one of the four was trained at SDC. Care to explain how your proposed BSR would affect
these?

And one was the guy that WROTE the rules at that DZ.

So if your canopy control teaching is so great (which I think it is better than most..maybe the best) then why did both accidents have a guy that had or created your training programs?

It takes two to collide...One to avoid.

And my point was simply that even with the best instruction...still it is often not enough.


Ron

Jun 27, 2003, 12:03 PM
Post #54 of 91 (1328 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
what it is essential to determine is are they being injured at a rate out of proportion to the increase in
total jumps and the increase in jumps of HP canopies? Also (roughly) how many lives could conceivably
be saved in relation to the number of jumpers who would be unnecessarily (because they have been
successfully flying wings the proposed BSR says they shouldnt) restricted in their progression

How about looking at the fact that the average jump number of the dead people is lower this year than the prior year..and it is lower than the one before that...ect?


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 27, 2003, 12:16 PM
Post #55 of 91 (1321 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

well that certainly a factor, but its misguided to hold it up as the only factor without looking at what else may affect the injury rates..

how many jumps were made in each of those years by jumpers in the lower catagories? does the ratio remain consistant?

thats exactly why we need better information to make effective regulation


Ron

Jun 27, 2003, 12:24 PM
Post #56 of 91 (1316 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
thats exactly why we need better information to make effective regulation

The problem is that this info does not exist...And I don't think we should wait 5 years to try and get it.

There is proof that this is an issue..plus to be honest common sense tells us that you should not be doing anything that can kill you without training...The more chances it will kill you the more training you should get.

And I still fail to see how this could be a bad thing.

The ones that want to do 100 mph with their hair on fire still can...as soon as they can PROVE they can handle it

Ron


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 27, 2003, 12:47 PM
Post #57 of 91 (1310 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

i agree, but it shouldnt take 5 years to collect it.. we have some info now, once we decide what other pieces of information are really nessesary for a complete picture we can develop a plan to collect it. A organized 2 year study would give us much better data than we have now, and give us a better idea of how the historical data fits into the large picture. Such a delay is unlikely to affect the fatality/injury rates significantly since most of the 'at risk' jumpers would still be grand fathered during that time period, even if regulation were put in place next week...

there are steps we can take right now to encourage more canopy education all around..will everyone get it?? no of course not, but any increase will make some difference and increased visibility of the issue (by an ongoing study) would also encourage others to seek it..

yes you will always have the few potential divots who dont think they need it and would NEVER take any classes unless they were mandatory, but placing possibly unnecessary requirements on thousands for the sake a a hand full who will not listen is unwarranted without more information that clearly shows the majority of jumpers need (vs 'would be beneficial to have' which is always true) further training


Ron

Jun 27, 2003, 1:01 PM
Post #58 of 91 (1303 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't see the need for more info.

I see the problem. Others see the problem.

The only issue is what and how to do something about it.

I have given ideas..I have seen others.

I don't care if mine is the "one"..I just care that the USPA does something more than just vote to build a museum, and try to collect proxies. And quit ingnoring the membership and the issues that modern skydiving has.

Ron


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 27, 2003, 1:48 PM
Post #59 of 91 (1290 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

ok lets hear your specific definition of the problem then?
and be ready for questions to clarify)

until you define it (and the majority can agree on the definition) you cant begin to figure out how to solve it effectively..

i agree on the museum and the USPA's role..however what if the majority of the membership decided that increased mandatory canopy control classes were unnessesary?

until you can cleary define the problem and the issues that affect it, you'll have a very hard time getting most people to agree about what needs to be done to resolve it..

data lets you do that.


(This post was edited by Zenister on Jun 27, 2003, 2:22 PM)


JamesNahikian

Jun 27, 2003, 3:11 PM
Post #60 of 91 (1272 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Vallerina] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Vallerina, the only casualty I'm aware of who fits your description had plenty of experience, and he could have qualified easily on paper as a canopy "expert" under the BSR and license proposals being floated around here. His misfortune (our misfortune, since he's a great guy) resulted from exhuberant poor judgment and lack of currency. None of the proferred rule changes would have affected the outcome you cite in support of your claims.

D. James Nahikian
CHICAGO


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 27, 2003, 3:17 PM
Post #61 of 91 (1267 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

>A organized 2 year study would give us much better data than we
> have now . . . .

How do you figure? Would you institute an optional reporting program? We have that now; no one uses it. Would you make reporting mandatory? Seems silly to make a mandatory rule that directly helps no one so we can see if we put in place a rule that _can_ help people. Would you pay a USPA representative to camp at each DZ and get incident reports, or call all over the US each Monday to get injury stats? That would be expensive. Would you lobby the NTSB to make reporting mandatory, with omissions punishable by government action? Seems like a bad idea.

So how do you propose to get that data?

>Such a delay is unlikely to affect the fatality/injury rates significantly
> since most of the 'at risk' jumpers would still be grand fathered
> during that time period, even if regulation were put in place next
> week...

With a two year delay, using my numbers, 13 people would die who would otherwise survive - if trends don't change at all. Doesn't seem that insignificant.


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 27, 2003, 3:36 PM
Post #62 of 91 (1257 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

actually i think reporting should be mandatory for any injury requiring serious medical attention. We wouldnt be arguing over such vague and fuzzy numbers if it was, this would also help detect and resolve any training shortfalls that might occur the next time technology changes..collecting non personal data to better define and understand the risks in any activity is always a good idea, getting it implemented a more troublesome one..

this may seem callous to many but 13 lives over two years IS pretty insignificant out of what 30,000 active jumpers??


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 27, 2003, 4:02 PM
Post #63 of 91 (1247 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

>collecting non personal data to better define and understand the
> risks in any activity is always a good idea, getting it implemented a
> more troublesome one..

Well, right. So how do you do it?

>this may seem callous to many but 13 lives over two years IS pretty
> insignificant out of what 30,000 active jumpers??

If 13 fatalities over two years is not worth avoiding, then I guess the discussion is over. You're OK with the fatality rates. I'm not, which is the big difference, I guess.


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 27, 2003, 4:06 PM
Post #64 of 91 (1245 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

any fatality is worth avoiding, however you have to accept that there will ALWAYS be a increase numbers of deaths as participation rates increase, both from simple number accumulation and from the fact that with a broad participation base your more likely to get people who might not be best suited to skydiving in the first place..

this is exactly why i've been asking: what is an acceptable fatality/injury rate?


(This post was edited by Zenister on Jun 27, 2003, 4:07 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 27, 2003, 4:14 PM
Post #65 of 91 (1243 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

>this is exactly why i've been asking: what is an acceptable
>fatality/injury rate?

Low. Want a hard number? It doesn't exist. If we had a hard number, and had a statistical fluke of a year where there were 70 fatalities, we'd fall all over ourselves passing questionable regulations over this and that. Then if we had another fluke of a year where there were only 10 fatalities, we'd rescind them all and pat ourselves on the back. And nothing would be different either year, it would just be a series of statistical flukes. We don't have enough fatalities every year to get a good confidence level that we're seeing real risks as opposed to flukes. To figure that out, you have to use that once-accepted, now all too rare facility called common sense, the common sense of people who have been in this sport for years and can see trends even in the absence of peer-reviewed research papers. In other words, the same way we passed every other BSR.


Zenister  (A 42)

Jun 27, 2003, 4:24 PM
Post #66 of 91 (1240 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

so as a % of participants (or of jumps) what is 'Low'?

one of the things to be wary of with 'common sense' intuition is, as more attention is payed to an issue, (and information is more easily obtained than before) it is very easy to percieve an increase in frequency when in fact the ratio may not have changed, but the attention you pay them and the drive with which you seek them out has increased your awareness..

thats how accurate tracking of this kind of data would prevent over (or under) reaction to any statistical spike or perceived trend not backed up by substantive data.

we know how many fatalities happen for most years, what we need (at the most basic level) is an idea of how many jumps were made in each year and where in the W/L to experiece/currency level each fatality falls..


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 27, 2003, 4:43 PM
Post #67 of 91 (1238 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

>one of the things to be wary of with 'common sense' intuition is, as
> more attention is payed to an issue, (and information is more easily
> obtained than before) it is very easy to percieve an increase in frequency when in fact the
> ratio may not have changed, but the attention you pay them and
> the drive with which you seek them out has increased your awareness..

Hmm. So if we got more data on current fatalities, that would fall under "oh, you're just paying more attention to them because information is more easily available on them?" By that reasoning, we better not get any more info on fatalities or there will be another reason to avoid taking any action.

>we know how many fatalities happen for most years, what we need
> (at the most basic level) is an idea of how many jumps were made
>in each year and where in the W/L to experiece/currency level each
> fatality falls..

Before 2000 that information simply does not exist. All we have are the data from 2001 and 2002 (and soon 2003.)


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Jun 28, 2003, 12:57 PM
Post #68 of 91 (1208 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Before 2000 that information simply does not exist. All we have are the data from 2001 and 2002 (and soon 2003.)

And it ain't pretty to some of us. Hence our call to action for making a WL BSR with an opt out option.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 28, 2003, 6:24 PM
Post #69 of 91 (1193 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
so as a % of participants (or of jumps) what is 'Low'?

one of the things to be wary of with 'common sense' intuition is, as more attention is payed to an issue, (and information is more easily obtained than before) it is very easy to percieve an increase in frequency when in fact the ratio may not have changed, but the attention you pay them and the drive with which you seek them out has increased your awareness..

thats how accurate tracking of this kind of data would prevent over (or under) reaction to any statistical spike or perceived trend not backed up by substantive data.

we know how many fatalities happen for most years, what we need (at the most basic level) is an idea of how many jumps were made in each year and where in the W/L to experiece/currency level each fatality falls..

This is called "Observational Selection".
From Carl Sagan's Balony Detection Kit:

(See how many others of these have been committed in this discussion)
__________________
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"


Ron

Jun 30, 2003, 4:21 AM
Post #70 of 91 (1144 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

The problem is that lower time jumpers are getting canopies that before they were unable to get. These jumpers lack of education and experience is resulting on many of them piloting open canopies in a manner that results in death and injuries at a greater rate than this group has ever seen before.

This trend will continue until the education is available to EVERY jumper at EVERY DZ, and until this edcation is MANDITORY. Or until these jumpers are not allowed to pilot such extreme canopies until they gain the experience to handle them.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 30, 2003, 7:23 AM
Post #71 of 91 (1123 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The problem is that lower time jumpers are getting canopies that before they were unable to get. .

Really? I got my Stiletto some years ago when I had 40 jumps and PD was restricting sales. I got it new from one of the country's largest mail order gear stores by the simple strategy that the owner sold it to himself for the purposes of PD's records.

I bet any number "escaped" this way.


Ron

Jun 30, 2003, 7:53 AM
Post #72 of 91 (1112 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Really? I got my Stiletto some years ago when I had 40 jumps and PD was restricting sales.

Again John...Think about the WHOLE US, not just your back yard.

And you had to be tricky to get it didn't you? Do young jumpers still have to?

Nope...So they ARE easier to get today.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 30, 2003, 10:20 AM
Post #73 of 91 (1093 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Really? I got my Stiletto some years ago when I had 40 jumps and PD was restricting sales.

Again John...Think about the WHOLE US, not just your back yard.

And you had to be tricky to get it didn't you? Do young jumpers still have to?

Nope...So they ARE easier to get today.

It wasn't in my back yard, the dealer was/is in California - also has branches in AZ and in the east.

I didn't have to be tricky - I just sent money. The dealer handled everything else and it wasn't until later that I found out why.


Ron

Jun 30, 2003, 10:53 AM
Post #74 of 91 (1081 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

OK John..

Lets get simple.

Dod yo think that it is easier to get HP canopies now (For EVERYONE) than it was a few years ago?

Take into account you have Dan P saying that a Cobalt is good for students.

Ron


JamesNahikian

Jun 30, 2003, 12:46 PM
Post #75 of 91 (1070 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

"Dod yo think that it is easier to get HP canopies now (For EVERYONE) than it was a few years ago?"

[It has _always_ been easy to obtain a desired canopy if you have cash, "friends" and a 70 IQ.]

"Take into account you have Dan P saying that a Cobalt is good for students."

[The Cobalt can be a good canopy for students who are trained on the Cobalt or a similar design at a committed and progressive dz.]
___________________________________________________________________
[The critical elements in this discussion are age, gender, enforcement, demonstrated ability, currency and requalification. In sum, we as parachutists need to maintain _awareness_ and _judgment_ on the part of all jumpers. To paper over these established concerns is unlikely to reduce fatalities in a meaningful way.]

D. James Nahikian
CHICAGO
Booth's Law #2


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 30, 2003, 1:04 PM
Post #76 of 91 (958 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
OK John..

Lets get simple.

Dod yo think that it is easier to get HP canopies now (For EVERYONE) than it was a few years ago?

Take into account you have Dan P saying that a Cobalt is good for students.

Ron

In my experience, it has never been difficult, so I guess the answer to your question is no.


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

Jun 30, 2003, 1:19 PM
Post #77 of 91 (948 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

You're an intelligent, resourceful college professor. You have many years' worth of experience at listening to every excuse in the book.

Of course you're above average in resourcefulness. If data points of some dozen is inadequate to judge whether the danger of too-aggressive downsizing is worth doing something about, a data point of one is inadequate to decide if it's easier to get hold of a high-performance canopy when you're unqualified to fly it.

Wendy W.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 30, 2003, 1:28 PM
Post #78 of 91 (939 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

>In my experience, it has never been difficult, so I guess the answer
>to your question is no.

Shortly after I started, our DZO bought a Monarch 190. It was a brand new canopy; no one was allowed to jump it but him because it was so dangerous. He refused to order any smaller ZP canopies through his channels for people because they were too dangerous. There were a few people who were not allowed to jump there due to their jumping tiny canopies. At the Ranch, you could not get small Stilettos at first, primarily due to the additional waiver.

Nowadays 1:1 loadings are actually pushed on new students; no one recommends F111 any more So in my experience it has become a great deal easier to get a HP canopy for lesser experienced jumpers. Please keep in mind that there are dropzones outside Skydive Chicago, and most of them are quite different.


JamesNahikian

Jun 30, 2003, 1:31 PM
Post #79 of 91 (937 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

'...worth doing something about..."
______________________________________________________

Sure, we can do _something_ about it. Yet the situation will remain unaffected. Attack the real concerns if you actually want to solve the problem.

D. James Nahikian
CHICAGO


(This post was edited by JamesNahikian on Jun 30, 2003, 1:33 PM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 30, 2003, 1:34 PM
Post #80 of 91 (933 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You're an intelligent, resourceful college professor. You have many years' worth of experience at listening to every excuse in the book.

Of course you're above average in resourcefulness. If data points of some dozen is inadequate to judge whether the danger of too-aggressive downsizing is worth doing something about, a data point of one is inadequate to decide if it's easier to get hold of a high-performance canopy when you're unqualified to fly it.

Wendy W.

Just answering the question as asked, Ma'am. He asked what I think and got an appropriately anecdotal reply. The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it is likely to be insufficient and selective - just like all the stories in this thread about low timers biffing in.

Until we have the complete picture with unbiased data, it's all just opinion.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 30, 2003, 1:39 PM
Post #81 of 91 (927 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
> Please keep in mind that there are dropzones outside Skydive Chicago, and most of them are quite different.

I bought my Stiletto from the gear store at a large and well known drop zone in southern California - about 2100 miles from Chicago. I am sure you are very familiar with the place, the staff, and the owner who obliged me.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jun 30, 2003, 1:54 PM
Post #82 of 91 (915 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
In my experience, it has never been difficult, so I guess the answer to your question is no.

In my experience, skydivers are jumping canopies at too high of a wing loading before they are ready, resulting in injuries and fatalities.

If I can't use 'experience', either can you.

Quote:
The Cobalt can be a good canopy for students who are trained on the Cobalt or a similar design at a committed and progressive dz.

What do you base that statement on?

I have JM'd 1753 students ("In my experience"), including Tandems, Static Line, and AFF/AFP, using everything from 292 Skymasters to a Sabre 170 (after first doing 3 working tandems and progressing down from larger Sabres and the 170's where only used for the smaller students that demonstrated the ability to handle it), as student canopies. I would never use a "high performance", " elliptical", Cobalt 170 (The Cobalt canopy is available in the following sizes: 65,75, 85, 95, 105, 120, 135, 150, & 170), as a canopy for a student. I have asked if any DZ has used Cobalts for student canopies and I believe the answer was "yes", but didn't answer the 'where' part of the question. Turned out that the real answer was "no", because DP still considered someone with a license a student. So Cobalts have not been used as student canopies.

Hook


JamesNahikian

Jun 30, 2003, 1:54 PM
Post #83 of 91 (915 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Likewise. Perhaps the moral thing is to seek the return of the money I have on account at the gear store I believe you refer to.

D. James Nahikian
CHICAGO


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 30, 2003, 2:51 PM
Post #84 of 91 (885 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You're an intelligent, resourceful college professor.


Want a date?

In reply to:

Of course you're above average in resourcefulness. If data points of some dozen is inadequate to judge whether the danger of too-aggressive downsizing is worth doing something about, a data point of one is inadequate to decide if it's easier to get hold of a high-performance canopy when you're unqualified to fly it.

Wendy W.

I repeat: I bought a Stiletto some years ago when I had 39 jumps from a very large California gear store whose name rhymes with "bare fun", and the owner set up the sale as I described. I did not need any resourcefulness, just cash in hand (metaphorically speaking - it was a mail order sale). I believe anyone could have done the same.

Before criticizing my one datum, how about asking how many folks here besides me have ANY experience of trying to buy a HP canopy with less than 50 jumps 5 or more years ago.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 30, 2003, 3:32 PM
Post #85 of 91 (873 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

>Before criticizing my one datum, how about asking how many folks
>here besides me have ANY experience of trying to buy a HP canopy
>with less than 50 jumps 5 or more years ago.

10-11 years ago I floated the idea of my buying a Sabre 210 instead of a used PD190. I figured it would glide better and last longer, and at my 90 jump level I figured I could handle it as well as my current Pursuit 215 (which I hurt myself on on several occasions due to its lack of flare.) Our DZO wouldn't hear of it; the PD was so much safer than the Sabre, he said.


andy2

Jun 30, 2003, 3:36 PM
Post #86 of 91 (871 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I bought a Stiletto some years ago when I had 39 jumps from a very large California gear store whose name rhymes with "bare fun", and the owner set up the sale as I described. I did not need any resourcefulness, just cash in hand (metaphorically speaking - it was a mail order sale). I believe anyone could have done the same.

so how has this changed since then? What I can make of it we as a society of skydivers are more willing to take risks (i.e. fly smaller canopies), but dealers are less willing to sell pocket rockets to low time jumpers. Is this correct?


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 30, 2003, 7:22 PM
Post #87 of 91 (845 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
In my experience, it has never been difficult, so I guess the answer to your question is no.

In my experience, skydivers are jumping canopies at too high of a wing loading before they are ready, resulting in injuries and fatalities.

If I can't use 'experience', either can you.

The difference is that I'm not trying to impose a new rule on the community, and you are. You should be held to a higher burden of proof.

In reply to:


Quote:
The Cobalt can be a good canopy for students who are trained on the Cobalt or a similar design at a committed and progressive dz.

What do you base that statement on?

I didn't write that. You have misquoted.

In reply to:
I have JM'd 1753 students ("In my experience"), including Tandems, Static Line, and AFF/AFP, using everything from 292 Skymasters to a Sabre 170 (after first doing 3 working tandems and progressing down from larger Sabres and the 170's where only used for the smaller students that demonstrated the ability to handle it), as student canopies. I would never use a "high performance", " elliptical", Cobalt 170 (The Cobalt canopy is available in the following sizes: 65,75, 85, 95, 105, 120, 135, 150, & 170), as a canopy for a student. I have asked if any DZ has used Cobalts for student canopies and I believe the answer was "yes", but didn't answer the 'where' part of the question. Turned out that the real answer was "no", because DP still considered someone with a license a student. So Cobalts have not been used as student canopies.

Hook


See above - I haven't mentioned Cobalts in this or any other thread.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jun 30, 2003, 8:06 PM
Post #88 of 91 (837 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I didn't write that. You have misquoted.

Sorry, I got lazy and replied to two different posts in one post.Blush The second part of my post was in reply to another poster, sorry for the confusion.

Quote:
The difference is that I'm not trying to impose a new rule on the community, and you are. You should be held to a higher burden of proof.

You make it sound so sinister. "Impose a new rule". How about "establish a BSR that addresses canopy control incidents". You make it sound like I am a wanna-be dictator, "imposing my will upon the masses".

Experience is all we have, and it has worked in the past. In the absence of another system, should we not address any problems with a new BSR until such a system could be established?

Lets' assume for a second, that we agree that the problem is real. Let's go so far as to assume that everyone agrees that there is a problem. Why handicap ourselves by saying that we must first gather hard evidence of the problem? If this was NASA, the I would agree with you. Stop everything, investigate the problem, sparing no expense, then develop a fix to the problem and implement the fix after making sure the fix really works and is safe. I have seen this happen at NASA. It is cumbersome, expensive and slow. It even fails to sometimes fix the problem.

You have obviously put a lot of thought into this proposed BSR, do you have any thoughts on an alternative solution?

Hook


Ron

Jul 1, 2003, 5:10 AM
Post #89 of 91 (808 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Before criticizing my one datum, how about asking how many folks here besides me have ANY experience of
trying to buy a HP canopy with less than 50 jumps 5 or more years ago.

I tried to buy a Stiletto 97 when I had 300 jumps...PD would not sell it to me, and in fact CALLED me to talk to me about it.

After some time talking to them, they said they would sell me the 107, but recomended strongly the 120...I listened to them and got the 120...And hooked it in on jump #3 on it..


sducoach  (D License)

Jul 1, 2003, 6:47 AM
Post #90 of 91 (794 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

SmileBill,

I bought a Stiletto in 94, custom order. Had to prove more than 500 jumps and sign two waivers. Now you can buy one with zero jumps and a credit card?????

Blues,

J.E.


Ron

Jul 1, 2003, 7:52 AM
Post #91 of 91 (776 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sducoach] Supporting data [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I bought a Stiletto in 94, custom order. Had to prove more than 500 jumps and sign two waivers. Now you
can buy one with zero jumps and a credit card?????

Yep. And that is a problem...A guy with 20 jumps does not know he does not have the skill to handle it...Most times a guy with 300 jumps does not know he does not have the skill.

And the bigger problem is there are places that will let him jump it.

I don't have a problem with a guy jumping something he PROVES he can handle. I do have a problem with a guy that just wants to go smaller because he stood up 90% of his landings.

Ron



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)