Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

kelpdiver  (B 7)

Feb 23, 2005, 4:12 PM
Post #1 of 43 (2344 views)
Shortcut
a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading Can't Post

BSR:

I. The maximum wingloading a USPA jumper may use:

a- For students: as specified by the Suggested Wing Loading Maximum chart (section x.y)
b- For A, B, C license holders, as specified by the Suggestion Wing Loading Maximum, plus .2
c- For D license holders, unlimited at the jumper's discretion.

II. A member USPA dropzone may elect to implement a more restrictive W/L policy than that as specified in section I, or to add other skills criteria.


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

SIM:
Suggested Wing Loading Maximum (with credit to Brian Germain)

Wingloading is determined by dividing the canopy size by the total exit weight of the jumper. The recommended max is based on experience, measured by logged jumps. Because smaller canopies are more responsive, subtract .2 for parachutes under 150ft2. Because of lower air density, subtract .1 for every 2000ft of altitude at the LZ.

< 100 jumps 1.0
< 200 jumps 1.1
< 300 jumps 1.2
< 400 jumps 1.3
< 500 jumps 1.4
< 600 jumps 1.5
< 700 jumps 1.6
< 800 jumps 1.7
< 900 jumps 1.8
< 1000 jumps 1.9
> 1000 jumps unlimited

It is not necessary nor recommended that a jumper load at the maximum, especially above 1.3. Using canopies at this level requires a higher level of currency. Downsizing should be done incrementally. If a newly purchased canopy is significantly smaller the jumper is advised to do some jumps on intermediary sizes before going to the new one. The DZ ST&A should be consulted when considering a change in canopy.

(edited to correct spelling of Brian's name. Crap!)


(This post was edited by kelpdiver on Feb 23, 2005, 6:43 PM)


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Feb 23, 2005, 4:13 PM
Post #2 of 43 (2328 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

By keeping this simple and fair, we can move on to focus on canopy training, which I think has much more potential to improve jumper safety.

Why .2? To allow for differences in canopy choice, canopy size (200+), skill, or risk acceptance. When people post about the need for a BSR, examples tend to be at least .3 over, and often much higher. .2 is in the range of reasonable. I also adopted it based on the Pier Group's classifications (Skydiver's Survival Guide) - Class 3 - 1-1.25 as being a suitable if slightly aggressive choice for a first canopy, and my experience in the 1.0-1.15 range.

With this allowance, the need for a test out procedure is eliminated. Some of you never really wanted to allow it anyway, only Ron made a clear proposal, and it didn't seem like it was practical for application. I don't even know how to get someone to check me off for my B accuracy jumps - looks to be on the honor system. Keep it Simple. For the same reason, no jumper databases to share among DZs.

In my opinion, the need for grandfathering also goes away. As seen in the canopy collision count, out of control jumpers are a risk to others. If they can't get within .2 in 12 months, is their wingloading remotely reasonable?

Why give D's carte blanche? It's the top rating. If that's not good enough to make an informed decision, it never will be. But this one isn't too important. Might couple this with an increase in canopy skills requirements. Currently the D doesn't require anything, right?

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

Variations

- treating D licenses as A,B,C.
remove I.c., add "D" to I.b.

- making the .2 allowance contigent on completion of specific canopy course standard
Alter I.b. to read: "A,B,C license holders who have completed an approved canopy course may exceed
the Suggested Wing Loading Maximum by .2.

- grandfathering
Add:
III. Jumpers who have purchased a canopy before [Implementation Date] must be in compliance with the
requires of I within the next year.
or
III. Jumpers who have purchased a canopy before [Implementation Date] that is outside of the limits
specified in I may use it provided they have the approval of the DZO or ST&A for the dropzone.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Feb 23, 2005, 5:14 PM
Post #3 of 43 (2295 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

I have a minor suggestion and one very big one.

The minor one is:

" A member USPA dropzone may elect to implement a more restrictive W/L policy than that as specified in section I, or to add other skills criteria. "

You don't need this. DZO's already do this for nearly everything else. You can't land in the swoop area until you have X jumps, you can't do 4-ways until you have X jumps, you can't jump camera until you do X, Y and Z. So I think saying that is a little superfluous. It's like saying "the S+TA can ground you if you are unsafe under canopy."

The big one I have is this:

I don't think that keeping a clueless jumper on a light loading until he has 500 jumps, then letting him buy a Xaos 78, will do very much to reduce landing accidents. I think the only thing will do that is education. Keeping the jumper on a light loading does allow him more time to learn from experience, and will reduce the severity of any injury from a low turn. But those things are minor (IMO) compared to the benefits of giving someone canopy piloting training.

It's the difference between allowing someone onto a 100 way state record after they have 500 jumps, or after they've been through a few of Kate and Tony's big way camps and gotten approval from them to be on the record jump. There's no comparison, and no question which method would produce a safer and more successful jump.

So I think any canopy restriction BSR that we recommend has _got_ to include education. The only thing I see the restriction doing is keeping people alive until they do get education, and giving them some sort of incentive to get that education.

If you really wanted to propose a WL limit like this, I think you have to add something like "making the .2 allowance contigent on completion of specific canopy course standard" (your suggestion) or "the BSR does not apply if you take an approved canopy control course" (from my BSR suggestion.) The education part of this is what will make it work.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 23, 2005, 5:15 PM
Post #4 of 43 (2293 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Why is it no surprise that a guy with 52 jumps rolls out a more permissive version of what others have already suggested.

An A license holder is little more than a student, yet they have the same permissions as a C license holder. Don't be surprised when a guy with a C license wants to fudge your system so that he has more freedoms.

As far as giving a D license holder free reign, thats retarded. There are canopies available today that far exceed the capabilities of ANY 500 jump wonder.

Carte blanche needs to be restricted to those who can handle any canopy out there, or at least have the jump numbers to have been able to attain that level of proficiency.

It's true that not all guys with 1000 jumps are cut out to fly an x-brace at 2.5, but they could be if they had worked on it, which is the point.

It's unfair to limit a jumper who could have made the jumps. It stupid to not limit a jumper who is in no way ready.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Feb 23, 2005, 6:14 PM
Post #5 of 43 (2261 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The minor one is:

" A member USPA dropzone may elect to implement a more restrictive W/L policy than that as specified in section I, or to add other skills criteria. "

I included that just to clearly state that the BSR would be a minimum. As you say it's stating the obvious, it's unneeded.

In reply to:
The big one I have is this:

I don't think that keeping a clueless jumper on a light loading until he has 500 jumps, then letting him buy a Xaos 78, will do very much to reduce landing accidents. I think the only thing will do that is education. Keeping the jumper on a light loading does allow him more time to learn from experience, and will reduce the severity of any injury from a low turn.

That was the intent of the verbiage for the SIM size about downsizing. I'd hope by 500 jumps the person would have better sense than to hop from a Tri190 to an Xaos-78. If you feel that may not be the case, then either forcing Ds to the same standard or upping their requirements to get the D would be in order.

I think education should be the key focus, but we spend a lot more time arguing over wing loadings and have had very few threads dedicated to the discussion of canopy training. I think Brian's was the only one with that as the focus. Not to say you (in particular) haven't been talking about it, but it's been imbedded in other threads.

So my suggestion is to put in a simple less extreme restriction in place now for wingloadings and move on to that more important subject.

Do you think a canopy course like Brian's or Scott's Essentials is sufficient to exempt a jumper entirely from a BSR limit? Or would that be the next generation canopy training?


(This post was edited by kelpdiver on Feb 23, 2005, 6:28 PM)


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Feb 23, 2005, 6:27 PM
Post #6 of 43 (2255 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Why is it no surprise that a guy with 52 jumps rolls out a more permissive version of what others have already suggested.

Certainly no more a surprise than you opening up with an attack rather than a useful reply. When I first floated it, Hooknswoop considered it a reasonable middle ground, and Bill is willing to talk details.

Removing the test out and the grandfathering makes it less permissive in many ways. It's also much simpler to implement, and doesn't treat newer jumpers as children. I'll point you to the spreadsheet I posted today that lists ages and jump numbers for the 141 canopy related fatalities. Average age = 36 and change.

In reply to:
An A license holder is little more than a student, yet they have the same permissions as a C license holder.

a C holder could go to 1.4 or more. An A could only after doing 200 jumps. He also can't land on the smaller LZs.

In reply to:
As far as giving a D license holder free reign, thats retarded. There are canopies available today that far exceed the capabilities of ANY 500 jump wonder.


And they're suddenly ok at 1000? Why not 4000? You have to pick a value somewhere. I choose the highest license available, and listed in variations the alternative to not do so.

In reply to:
It's unfair to limit a jumper who could have made the jumps. It stupid to not limit a jumper who is in no way ready.

You're currently willing to hold people at 90 jumps to a 1.0 wl, when first rig canopies are frequently at 1.1.


FrogNog  (C 34484)

Feb 23, 2005, 6:36 PM
Post #7 of 43 (2244 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

BSRs aren't meant to be perfect, have no loopholes, make everyone happy, or keep people perfectly safe. They "promote practices aimed at eliminating incidents". Very mildly worded.

I personally look at BSRs as "bare minimum recommendations" and "history written in blood."

The canopy wingloading issue, bless that deceased and contused graminovore, is complex in that it involves issues of currency, raw wingloading, canopy type, DZ altitude, and individual jumpers' abilities.

With that in mind, a BSR that addresses part of the problem, but not all of it, can still be a good BSR if it does the other BSR things right.

One of those other BSR things is: could ALL USPA dropzones stand behind enforcing this as a required rule on themselves? (I suppose this brings up the question of the proposed BSR's waiverability, as well.)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 23, 2005, 6:45 PM
Post #8 of 43 (2237 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Why is it no surprise that a guy with 52 jumps rolls out a more permissive version of what others have already suggested.

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


Certainly no more a surprise than you opening up with an attack rather than a useful reply. When I first floated it, Hooknswoop considered it a reasonable middle ground, and Bill is willing to talk details.

The point to the whole thing is this; you have an interest to protect. You're future canopy choices hang in the balance here, and your desires for greater freedoms are coloring your ideas. I have nothing to loose, and my only gain is seeing a reduction in injuries.

As far as opening with an attack, I never touted my winning personalltiy as support for my ideas. I let my abilities, experience, and track record of having an understanding of whats going on support my ideas. I'm kind of a dick, and I've said it before. By opening with an 'attack' as you call it (I tend to call it the truth) at least you know the real Dave was not abducted by aliens.

Quote:
And they're suddenly ok at 1000? Why not 4000? You have to pick a value somewhere. I choose the highest license available, and listed in variations the alternative to not do so.

PD calls for 500 jumps before jumping a Stiletto. Next up, the Velo, is for "Jumpers who have been jumping small elipticals for several skydiving seasons, and consdier themselves very proficient".

So lets see, 500 jumps, then you get a Stiletto. Several seasons, and enough jumps to be proficient with it, sounds like about 500 more jumps to me.

Do the math. If you don't like it, argue with PD.

Of course, they only make the best canopies out there, and the winningest x-brace around, but what could they possibly know about anything.


NWPoul  (D 178119)

Feb 23, 2005, 11:27 PM
Post #9 of 43 (2178 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
a C holder could go to 1.4 or more. An A could only after doing 200 jumps. He also can't land on the smaller LZs.

Why A holder can't land on the small DZ? I never saw such restrictions, We have here DZ which have landing zone about 50x200 meters (between runaway and service track) so jumpers have to learn how land on a limited spot right starting from their AFF programm:)...

P/S actually you did wrote about smaller LZs not small DZ so if my understanding of your post is wrong I beg your pardon:)


DancingFlame  (C 177476)

Feb 23, 2005, 11:46 PM
Post #10 of 43 (2175 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Because smaller canopies are more responsive, subtract .2 for parachutes under 150ft2.
Don't buy this.
Safire 149 and Sabre 150. Are they SO different?
Okay, 139 and 150. Loaded 1.1, they fly about the same, why 0.2? Well, I can 'subtract 0.1'. But why 0.2?


DancingFlame  (C 177476)

Feb 23, 2005, 11:57 PM
Post #11 of 43 (2170 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

Oh, and something more.
Total jump number means nothing. Considering 300 jumps in 10 years (30 jumps per year) and 300 jumps per months...
Proper training and currency are the keys.


feuergnom  (D License)

Feb 24, 2005, 5:10 AM
Post #12 of 43 (2123 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

is this another feeble attempt to start a really hot & controversial thread where every injury/incident/etc is blamed on wingloading and solving everything by inventing another regulation Crazy

sorry for my ignorance - but this tends to get boring after a while


as a sidenote:
maybe we could modify godwins law. everytime the term wingload is used in a skydiving-related discussion, the thread ends automaticaly AngelicTongue


(This post was edited by feuergnom on Feb 24, 2005, 5:15 AM)


rasmack  (D 647)

Feb 24, 2005, 5:29 AM
Post #13 of 43 (2106 views)
Shortcut
Re: [feuergnom] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
as a sidenote:
maybe we could modify godwins law. everytime the term wingload is used in a skydiving-related discussion, the thread ends automaticaly AngelicTongue
Sitting... on... hands...
Must... not... make... geek... remark...
Failing.... miserably...
<geek humour>You Nazi!</geek humour>
Sorry. couldn't help it.


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

Feb 24, 2005, 5:46 AM
Post #14 of 43 (2093 views)
Shortcut
Re: [feuergnom] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

No, he looked at actual incident data for the last 10 years, and is trying to come up with something that will address at least some of the accidents without the problems that made all of the other canopy-BSR threads such flame fests.

I still like the test-out provisions, but tying it to a license, with its list of capabilities to be demonstrated, does make some sense.

Wendy W.


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 24, 2005, 6:43 AM
Post #15 of 43 (2067 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
No, he looked at actual incident data for the last 10 years, and is trying to come up with something that will address at least some of the accidents without the problems that made all of the other canopy-BSR threads such flame fests.

I still like the test-out provisions, but tying it to a license, with its list of capabilities to be demonstrated, does make some sense.

Wendy W.

Of course it does, that is the correct way of granting privileges, whether driving, flying, or skydiving.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Feb 24, 2005, 9:04 AM
Post #16 of 43 (2028 views)
Shortcut
Re: [feuergnom] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

>sorry for my ignorance - but this tends to get boring after a while

Then I would recommend sticking to Bonfire or Speaker's Corner. There are a few types of accidents that get repeated over and over in this sport; that's why they are discussed over and over here. If we ever get to the point where only a few people a year die under perfectly good canopies, you will see these discussions fade away. Until them, you are free to ignore them.


mattjw916  (D License)

Feb 24, 2005, 10:50 AM
Post #17 of 43 (1998 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

This BSR would create an administrative headache for traveling jumpers that frequent many dropzones at varying elevations. Case in point, my main would exceed the chart when at my new "home" DZ, but since I travel for work often and get to jump at other (usually much lower MSL DZs) it is suddenly acceptable.

A separate issue is that DZs you visit generally don't even ask what type/size/loading of main canopy you jump. You just show up, fill out waiver, get a thorough (or not) gear check, pay money, and get on a load. Hell, I have only been asked for my logbook to verify my currency once or twice maybe. That's just my experience so far though, maybe some are more dilligent than others.

Would many DZOs/S&TAs really start turning away fun-jumpers that show up at a DZ as a visitor since their main is ~0.08 over max according to "the chart" due to the field elevation MSL of the landing area?

I have been exceeding "the chart" since I was a student anyway.

Just my $0.02... I am currently on the fence on this topic FWIW.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Feb 24, 2005, 11:16 AM
Post #18 of 43 (1989 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mattjw916] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Would many DZOs/S&TAs really start turning away fun-jumpers that show up at a DZ as a visitor since their main is ~0.08 over max according to "the chart" due to the field elevation MSL of the landing area?

Will the S & TA ground you for pulling 1 foot too low? How about 2 feet? 500 feet? 100 feet?

Same common sense would apply to a WL BSR.

Derek


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Feb 24, 2005, 11:24 AM
Post #19 of 43 (1987 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mattjw916] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

> This BSR would create an administrative headache for traveling jumpers
> that frequent many dropzones at varying elevations.

I don't think that's an issue. Right now A, B, C and D licensed jumpers jump at drop zones; how does an S+TA ever know which A license guys to bust for opening at 2400 feet? Answer: he doesn't. He only gets involved when someone pulls dangerously low. When there is a recurrent problem, say someone pulling at 1500 feet regularly, he can point to the BSR's and say "Look, you gotta be open by 2500 feet, period."

>A separate issue is that DZs you visit generally don't even ask what
> type/size/loading of main canopy you jump.

Hmm. I've found that some do; there's a place on the waiver to fill out your weight, your height, whether you have an AAD, and sometimes even what your container and main is. I would expect more people to start doing this, which I think would be a good thing.

>Would many DZOs/S&TAs really start turning away fun-jumpers that show
> up at a DZ as a visitor since their main is ~0.08 over max according to
> "the chart" due to the field elevation MSL of the landing area?

On occasion, they may indeed do that. I would expect most to be flexible enough to know that if someone has 200 jumps on a certain wing loading, they will likely be OK at a DZ 200 feet higher.

>I have been exceeding "the chart" since I was a student anyway.

It's a given that 90% of the people out there can exceed this chart and not die. Which is why I've proposed a 'test out' in my BSR, although that's not the one under discussion here.


(This post was edited by billvon on Feb 24, 2005, 11:29 AM)


dorbie

Feb 24, 2005, 12:38 PM
Post #20 of 43 (1966 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

Seems reasonable but if you look at the +.2 loading modifier it affects all licensed jumpers and the initial table looks restrictive until you understand this, but when applied may look excessive. I try to make this clearer below:

How many students have over 100 jumps?

Here are the modification to the wording in the version I have appended:

1) Built the +.2 bias into the table and eliminating the +.2 for license

2) eliminated the redundant DZ discretion statement

3) eliminated the D license unlimited size clause

4) added a 50 jump category at 1.1 for licensed jumpers

5) added student 1.0 load restriction

If you don't like the new numbers, that's what the original version actually proposed although it also allowed 1.2 under 50 jumps so I've only made it clearer.
My initial observation is this regulation automatically gives everyone permission to load at 1.6 after 400 jumps more experienced minds may find this a problem, I don't have an opinion on that. He'd have to be a big guy given the modifier at 150 ft^2.

Note that this is in practice almost the same regulation, it's just presented differently and IMHO makes what's being proposed a bit clearer w.r.t. the +.2 modifier for licensed jumpers. It's not my proposal, it's not my intent to offer anything significantly novel here, just bring clarity and brevity to the proposal.

I. The maximum wingloading a USPA jumper may use:

a- For All Licensed Jumpers: as specified by the Suggested Wing Loading Maximum chart (section x.y)
b- Jumpers on student status may not exceed a wing loading of 1.0.

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

SIM:
Suggested Wing Loading Maximum (with credit to Brian Germain) [modified with +.2 bias]

Wingloading is determined by dividing the canopy size by the total exit weight of the jumper. The recommended max is based on experience, measured by logged jumps. Because smaller canopies are more responsive, subtract .2 for parachutes under 150ft2. Because of lower air density, subtract .1 for every 2000ft of altitude at the LZ.

< 50 jumps 1.1
< 100 jumps 1.2
< 200 jumps 1.3
< 300 jumps 1.4
< 400 jumps 1.5
< 500 jumps 1.6
< 600 jumps 1.7
< 700 jumps 1.8
< 800 jumps 1.9
< 900 jumps 2.0
< 1000 jumps 2.1
> 1000 jumps unlimited

It is not necessary nor recommended that a jumper load at the maximum, especially above 1.3. Using canopies at this level requires a higher level of currency. Downsizing should be done incrementally. If a newly purchased canopy is significantly smaller the jumper is advised to do some jumps on intermediary sizes before going to the new one. The DZ ST&A should be consulted when considering a change in canopy.


(This post was edited by dorbie on Feb 24, 2005, 1:07 PM)


mattjw916  (D License)

Feb 24, 2005, 12:39 PM
Post #21 of 43 (1961 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

I would be more inclined to support a BSR if common sense was used in enforcing it (i.e. not nit-picking over a few square-feet of nylon or fractions of a w/l point) and there was a "test out" provision as well that was clearly spelled out and FREE.

I still like the idea of a canopy coach rating as well. Education is a lot more important to me than regulation.

Cheers!


Praetorian  (B 27234)

Feb 24, 2005, 12:42 PM
Post #22 of 43 (1956 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

The answer is education, REQUIRE some formal flying/landing skills for each lisense beginning with A. I was SAFELY under a 1.1:1 before I was off student status BECAUSE I WAS PROPERLY TRAINED, my instructors had finnal say over my progression. My 1(beer) main is about 1.12-1.15:1 depending on what I've eaten and what I'm wearing, due to weather in the summer the field at SDC (skydive chicago) can have a HUGE apparent altitude shift (hot and humid) which I took serious note of on those days. Give the wingloading chart as a suggestion, require certain skills be demonstrated to exceed it by different amounts, say up to .2 over with a course, up to .3 over with a course and X, Y and Z skills demonstrated. No exclusions, let people demonstrate those skills with the main they have in order to keep flying it.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Feb 24, 2005, 12:45 PM
Post #23 of 43 (1954 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mattjw916] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This BSR would create an administrative headache for traveling jumpers that frequent many dropzones at varying elevations. Case in point, my main would exceed the chart when at my new "home" DZ, but since I travel for work often and get to jump at other (usually much lower MSL DZs) it is suddenly acceptable.

A separate issue is that DZs you visit generally don't even ask what type/size/loading of main canopy you jump. You just show up,

Any wingloading policy has implementation issues of this sort. That's the driving force behind simplifying it so. There are at least a couple DZs that have done their own - probably worth seeing how they chose to manage it.

I think as Bill suggests, they'd do initial screening on the waiver/bio form and if someone comes down in the LZ looking a bit out of control, would investigate more closely.

Should a DZ turn someone away for being .08 (nearly a full point) over? Maybe - the 2 pt margin I suggest exists to cover those sorts of variations. It's not like the freeway speed limit, which is effectively treated by drivers as a minimum.


dorbie

Feb 24, 2005, 12:49 PM
Post #24 of 43 (1951 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Praetorian] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

An A license does require quite a bit for canopy control. Look at the card. B, C & D require nothing beyond accuracy and with the number of jumps you're going to get a lot of that with minimal skill anyway.

I actually prefer a license and wing load restriction but it will only be fully be justified when you start to load B and C licenses with canopy training requirements.

There's no reason you can't say to get a C license you need to attend canopy instruction class (just as you need water training for B) and people with a B license won't park there if they need a C license to move beyond a wing loading limit.

I've seen at least one DZ with a policy like this now. But that's really for a different proposal and different discussion.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Feb 24, 2005, 1:14 PM
Post #25 of 43 (1935 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] a KISS BSR proposal for Wingloading [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The point to the whole thing is this; you have an interest to protect. You're future canopy choices hang in the balance here, and your desires for greater freedoms are coloring your ideas. I have nothing to loose, and my only gain is seeing a reduction in injuries.

While the potential for bias is there, having a stake in it doesn't disqualify me from stating my side. You, on the other hand, pay none of the negative consequences your ideas may have. So your bias may be in only seeing the gains. You could limit wingloadings to .75 and it would save countless incidents as we'd be grounded half the year due to wind.

Neither proposal is likely to have any effect on me. I bought my main, a tri 220 you would insist is a death trap for me. 190 is likely as small as the container will go, that should last me 3+ years. Before I got it, I would rent Fusion 230s at Skydance, Spectre 210s or Falcon 215s at Hollister. In your world, none of these are appropriate with a 240 exit weight. I find that as ridiculous as me insisting I should be able to fly a 170 now. Neither statement can be well defended.

So I'm proposing a middle ground where both extremes are eliminated. It's still a big improvement from where we are now, would eliminate all the people/canopy combos you JUST KNOW will be crashing down soon. Will people still get hurt or die? Of course. It's not a safe sport. If you look at the excel sheet I posted and sort by jump numbers, you'll see LOWT deaths of people with well over 1000 jumps. In a couple, it seems like their hands just slipped at the wrong moment.

In reply to:
PD calls for 500 jumps before jumping a Stiletto. Next up, the Velo, is for "Jumpers who have been jumping small elipticals for several skydiving seasons, and consdier themselves very proficient".

Nothing about this proposal says otherwise. But like I said, if you think freshly minted D holders are idiots, go for the variation that doesn't exempt them.

BTW, I should clarify that line - I meant it to be "D licenses with at least 500 jumps." Those who got their's before the 2003 change would need to make the current D min jump count.


First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)