Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments!

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

robinheid  (D 5533)

Mar 2, 2012, 7:28 PM
Post #51 of 125 (1147 views)
Shortcut
Re: [linnths] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Dear skydivers out there.

The safety committee for the Norwegian Air-sports Federation has come up with a suggestion to new rules for the norwegian jumpers,

You don't need new rules.

You need new THINKING.

As in: Spend less time forcing more laws of man on your jumpers and more time helping them learn the laws of nature.

You know, like Newton's laws of motion generally and how to fly an aircraft specifically.

Instead of worrying about what wing they're flying, how about paying more attention to how they're flying it?

In the US there is this basically psychotic notion that parachutists must focus on learning fun freefall skills before they learn survival parachuting skills.

New thinking requires going back to the future. No rides "to the top of Fun Mountain" until they have graduated from Basic Flight Training consisting of static line and/or hop and pop freefalls for 20-30-50-however many jumps it takes them to learn how to fly their inflatable aircraft -- and understand private pilot-level aerodynamics and flight control techniques.

Some of this is being taught in the US and elsewhere, but only in bits and pieces and as a side dish to the main coourse, which is playing in freefall.

Learn to fly your wings first, then learn how to fly your body because playing in the sky is fantasy; coming back to earth is reality.

Instead, you and your association are following the tired old and provably unproductive path of imposing more rules that make ever more demands not just on the jumpers who are doing this for FUN but on the association that allegedly serves to encourage said fun.

Seriously, your association is proposing to embark on a path of creating a complicated clusterfink of largely unenforcible rules that will not change anything for the better because you're targeting the parachute, not the pilot,

If you instead took all of the time, treasure and brain cells you're proposing to burn through on this many-times-proven useless exercise and invested it in helping your jumpers to learn how to fly better, this would all go a lot better.

44
Cool


Calvin19  (D 29712)

Mar 2, 2012, 9:34 PM
Post #52 of 125 (1134 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
As in: Spend less time forcing more laws of man on your jumpers and more time helping them learn the laws of nature.

You know, like Newton's laws of motion generally and how to fly an aircraft specifically.

Instead of worrying about what wing they're flying, how about paying more attention to how they're flying it?

In the US there is this basically psychotic notion that parachutists must focus on learning fun freefall skills before they learn survival parachuting skills.

New thinking requires going back to the future. No rides "to the top of Fun Mountain" until they have graduated from Basic Flight Training consisting of static line and/or hop and pop freefalls for 20-30-50-however many jumps it takes them to learn how to fly their inflatable aircraft -- and understand private pilot-level aerodynamics and flight control techniques.

Wow... I could not agree more.

I have taught a few (yes, less than 5) students through to A license by Deathcamping and IAD. I have seen AFF vid gone wrong, and flown in on a few AFFs. AFF, to me, seems like the worst idea in the world.

Hey instructors! wanna have fun? lets take some idiot that watched MTV a bit too much, put a parachute on them, take a few hours explaining what they are supposed to do and then LITERALLY put them in the most stressful moment of their life and bet on if they can count to three or not.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 3, 2012, 5:14 AM
Post #53 of 125 (1111 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If you instead took all of the time, treasure and brain cells you're proposing to burn through on this many-times-proven useless exercise and invested it in helping your jumpers to learn how to fly better, this would all go a lot better.

Sort of, but not completely.

Even thought it's a futile argument, your core point about the nature of how we train new jumpers is correct. The freefall skills needed to make a safe jump pale in comparison to the canopy skills needed, yet the focus is clearly on freefall. If you can get stable at pull time, you can make a safe freefall, while a safe canopy ride cannot be summed up in so few words.

With that in mind, there's no reason that we need to do away with AFF, we just need to re-focus it. People want to jump for fun, and a freefall from 13k is a big draw from a 'marketing' perspective. With the level of training and oversight, the frist few levels don't even need to be changed all that much, but once you hit lv. 4 or 5, there needs to be a shift where there's another ground school, focused on canopy control, and that becomes the real point of the jumps.

Let's face it, beyond learing to fly stable, freefall is just a series of 'tricks'. Rolls, flips and spins, it sounds like a 3rd grade gym class. None of it is that hard or that important that you can't have your 'fun' in freefall, while still having 'work to do' under canopy.

Even if you could get those changes instituted, you still need some control beyond student status in terms of canopy size and selection. Let's face it, we're dealing exclusively with skydivers, and there's going to be a large percentage of highly confident, type A personalities, so their nature is going to be to push the limits. When you combine that with no limitations on canopy size or type, and the current selection of canopies, you're going to have trouble.

People like to come back to the general aviation comparison, and true to form, they have 'hoops' that need to be jumped through in order to fly certain aricraft. The high performance and complex sign-offs come to mind, and while those technically have no min hours required (just a PPL), you better be an exceptional pilot if you think any CFI is going to sign you off on those with the ink still wet on your PPL. Likewise, the IFR rating actaully does have a min experience requirement in that you need a PPL and something like 50 hours cross country time as PIC, and a certain number of dual hours in simulated IFR before you can take your check ride, and again, if you schedule a check ride with the bare minimum hours, you better be razor sharp or the check airman will fail you in a hurry.

Lacking the ability to really provide 'dual' training (tandems don't count, I'm talking about licensed jumpers) or any sort of check ride, the best alternative we have a is a conservative jump numbner requirement, one where we can safely assume that 'most' jumpers at that point have achieved 'x' level of skill under canopy.

As I pointed out before, these restrictions don't stop anyone from jumping, or having fun, or building skills under canopy, it's just a matter of helping them make good canopy size/type selections while they're learning how to make those choices for themselves. Anyone who's been in the sport for more than a few years knows how much you learn in your first 3 or 4 years and 300 or 400 jumps. It's a real process, but until you go trough it, it's tough to comprehend.


craigbey  (C 31991)

Mar 3, 2012, 7:45 AM
Post #54 of 125 (1089 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It's simple really...you set the rules and everybody abides by them.

Rules alone are not going to help much.

From davelepka...
Quote:
Removing them all together isn't really helping the problem either, It's a two-pronged approach, combining the continuing education AND jump number based canopy/Wl restrictions. To move forward without one or the other isn't going to solve the problem

In addition to updating student programs to emphasize more CC training, we need ongoing CC education to reinforce survival skills and to provide better training opportunities for those who want to fly HP canopies.


DaVinciflies

Mar 3, 2012, 8:41 AM
Post #55 of 125 (1077 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
the best alternative we have a is a conservative jump numbner requirement, one where we can safely assume that 'most' jumpers at that point have achieved 'x' level of skill under canopy.

My issue is that I don't think that is a safe assumption. Any "assumption" of skill level is fraught with risk.

I believe we really need to have some way of assessing skill by demonstration. And yes, I realize the implications of this, but it would be the gold standard.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 3, 2012, 9:27 AM
Post #56 of 125 (1065 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DaVinciflies] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


the best alternative we have a is a conservative jump numbner requirement, one where we can safely assume that 'most' jumpers at that point have achieved 'x' level of skill under canopy.

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


My issue is that I don't think that is a safe assumption. Any "assumption" of skill level is fraught with risk.

I believe we really need to have some way of assessing skill by demonstration. And yes, I realize the implications of this, but it would be the gold standard.

Note that I said a 'conservative' jump number requirement, meaning that it's not fraught with risk based on the ideas that A) it's a conservative number, and that B) nobody is required to downsize at that number, it's just the earliest they could if that was their desire.

A performance-based test is fraught with more risk than a jump number requirement. The test itself would have to challenge the jumper to prove they could handle the new canopy, and that challenge combined with the pressure to perform creates a 'perfect storm' for an incident.

Similar to swooping competitions, or even just setting up a target or set of gates in the LZ, when you give someone a 'target' and the desire to succeed, sometimes those factors overshadow good choices or reasonable thinking.

The problem with canopy flight is that it's a 100% solo activity, so if you're going to leave the plane with canopy in your rig, you personally need to be able to operate it 100% and make good choices 100% of the time, regarless of what events, collisions, or injuries occur between exit and landing, and the truth is that there's no really good way to test for that.

It's hard to tell how people are going to perform when the shit hits the fan, and this is what the whole thing is about. The rule of thumb is to jump a canopy you can safely land in the worst possible scenario, and unless you can put yourself into that scenario and really 'test' yourself, you just don't know what you can do. The work-around to this is to jump a canopy that represents a conservative choice. Not one that you 'think' you could handle, or one that you 'should be' OK with, but one that you (and the experienced jumpers around you) have no doubt that you can handle.


Skydivesg  (D 10938)

Mar 3, 2012, 10:43 AM
Post #57 of 125 (1053 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm responding to this thread in general not to any specific person.

I think this is a good discussion especially this last page.

Canopy choice and canopy flight skills have become and will likely continue to be the most important debate in our sport for the forseeable future.

I for one don't want to see rules implemented in the US like the ones that started this thread.

I am a firm believer in education. Having said this I know I must accept the fact that there will always be people who choose to short cut and end up busting them selves up or worse. As it's been said before, our sport by it's very nature draws that type of person.

I do have an observation.

I believe part of the problem is many of the people who have, in the past, made poor canopy choices and learned to fly those canopies by the seat of their pants and yet somehow have come through the other side unscathed.

Now those people have hundreds and sometimes even thousands of jumps with nary a scratch and because they got away with it they encourage newer jumpers to do the same.

What I have noticed is that those jumpers don't always take a public stand but instead give the old pat-on-the-back, a wink and a wisper to the noob saying ...."don't worry about those old conservative guys. They're just fun haters"

And the problem just continues to perpetuate.

This may not be a problem every where but over recent years I've witnessed it at several DZs.


becka  (D 30967)

Mar 3, 2012, 7:02 PM
Post #58 of 125 (1013 views)
Shortcut
Re: [linnths] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

There are a lot of the usual regulation/no regulation comments on this thread. However, when I first saw this thread I was hoping people with more experience (especially smaller jumpers) would respond to one of the OPs main points which is the much higher restriction on smaller jumpers.

I know there is not a linear progression because a smaller canopy will behave more aggressively at the same wing-loading as a larger canopy. However, at least based on personal experience, it does not seem to be nearly as dramatic as this chart or the SIM makes it out to be.

I was so concerned for the "big jump" from a 164 to 150. And then from a 150 to a 135. And then from a 135 to a 119. But at my size, I barely noticed a difference at all in these progressions. Yet the SIM insists that a 150 square foot canopy is high performance regardless of wing-loading.

What I did notice is that I could actually make forward progress above 1000 feet on a moderately windy day. I also noticed that landing with some forward speed on a regular basis makes it easier for me to land a little more gracefully.

While many people (including me) probably don't need something much below 109 square feet (1.25ish for me) before 1200 jumps, some talented smaller jumpers deserve to be able to make the progression the larger jumpers are allowed/encouraged to make.

But I only have 700 jumps and am not an expert. Could someone with more experience dealing with smaller jumpers and their canopy progression weigh in on this issue?

Thanks!


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 3, 2012, 7:05 PM
Post #59 of 125 (1011 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craigbey] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Rules alone are not going to help much.
Yes... IF you let the bozos get away with ignoring them. It's where we are today with "recommendations".
"Those 'recommendations' don't apply to me because I have mad skillz."

In reply to:
In addition to updating student programs to emphasize more CC training, we need ongoing CC education to reinforce survival skills and to provide better training opportunities for those who want to fly HP canopies.
Absolutely. Now how do you get the "instructors" and the DZOs AND the S&TAs to do that. Those are the guys that are supposed to be doing that training and it's not getting done in the big scheme of things. Ask yourself why.

To everyone:
You guys are insanely short-changing our youngsters. They only know what you teach them until they can make intelligent decisions for themselves. In your mad rush to prove how brave and "cool" you are, you shoot them in the foot and do them a great disservice by propagating that "faster is cooler" and "you need to downsize now" idiocy. You are implanting that idiocy into their young minds bringing them up to think that those are intelligent decisions. They base their future on what you are telling them now.

Norway and the Netherlands are trying to slow that down to a manageable level and I applaud them heroically.

How about you do as much to instill skydiving safety and education into their thought processes instead?


We need the rules because you bozos ignore the recommendations. Yes, you'll ignore the rules too won't you?
Crazy
Well, at least until a greater power puts the skids on it. Have fun with that.


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Mar 3, 2012, 7:07 PM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 3, 2012, 7:15 PM
Post #60 of 125 (1004 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Everyone] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

FROM Skydivesg:
In reply to:
I do have an observation.

I believe part of the problem is many of the people who have, in the past, made poor canopy choices and learned to fly those canopies by the seat of their pants and yet somehow have come through the other side unscathed.

Now those people have hundreds and sometimes even thousands of jumps with nary a scratch and because they got away with it they encourage newer jumpers to do the same.

What I have noticed is that those jumpers don't always take a public stand but instead give the old pat-on-the-back, a wink and a wisper to the noob saying ...."don't worry about those old conservative guys. They're just fun haters"

And the problem just continues to perpetuate.

This may not be a problem every where but over recent years I've witnessed it at several DZs.

You said it in a 'nicer' way. My frustration is showing, I guess.
Unsure


linnths  (C 92128)

Mar 4, 2012, 5:58 AM
Post #61 of 125 (976 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
And below each weight group, you'll have the maximum size of canopy the jumper is allowed to jump.

What units are they using for canopy size and WL?



.

I'm afraid I don't understand your question completely... the numbers for canopy size are in square feet, as normal, and wing load in pounds per square feet. Was that your question or am I being blonde here? ;)


linnths  (C 92128)

Mar 4, 2012, 6:23 AM
Post #62 of 125 (970 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Dear skydivers out there.

The safety committee for the Norwegian Air-sports Federation has come up with a suggestion to new rules for the norwegian jumpers,

You don't need new rules.

You need new THINKING.

Instead, you and your association are following the tired old and provably unproductive path of imposing more rules that make ever more demands not just on the jumpers who are doing this for FUN but on the association that allegedly serves to encourage said fun.

Seriously, your association is proposing to embark on a path of creating a complicated clusterfink of largely unenforcible rules that will not change anything for the better because you're targeting the parachute, not the pilot,

If you instead took all of the time, treasure and brain cells you're proposing to burn through on this many-times-proven useless exercise and invested it in helping your jumpers to learn how to fly better, this would all go a lot better.

44
Cool

He he... I just need to make something extremely clear here: I am not part of the "you" you are referring to ;) I started this discussion as a mid-experienced jumper interested in learning about your opinions on the matter.

There have been several interesting responds here, which I am grateful for. That being said, and this have also been mentioned above, I, and many other jumpers, believe the suggested new rules are way to static and misses out on a lot of important factors - one of them you mention: we should focus on the pilot too, not the canopy alone.

Just needed to get that off my chest.

I'd like to respond to all of the comments in here, some I agree with, some I totally disagree with. Especially the part where "you should be able to do whatever".

As long as our sport includes taking up air-space from commercial air traffic, that no one makes money on, we're a pain in the ass. As long as we continue to die, negative attention is given us, and it reflects badly upon the sport.

It's not a given (at least not in Norway) that we are allowed by the government to practice our activity as freely as we do. With all the focus pollution and such is given, it just takes the one asshole that figures out by himself that we practice (in society's eyes) a completely meaningless activity, and we could be shut down, or given so strict restrictions that skydiving will be close to impossible. (In Norway, this is already a huge problem, around the bigger airports, we are hardly allowed to skydive anymore. That's why our biggest dropzones are placed in god-forsaken places).

I'm just saying, and I know people will give me crap for this, that us having fun in the sky, is not a "right we have". It's a privilege that can be taken away. The more people that kill themselves and others in this sport, the harder it gets to argue that it's a good thing. That's how society's become. Risk is seen as unnecessary...


shropshire  (C License)

Mar 4, 2012, 6:41 AM
Post #63 of 125 (961 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Did you mean 'let's make it 1.0'? Makes more sense that way.

whoops - yeap.


linnths  (C 92128)

Mar 4, 2012, 6:53 AM
Post #64 of 125 (959 views)
Shortcut
Re: [becka] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There are a lot of the usual regulation/no regulation comments on this thread. However, when I first saw this thread I was hoping people with more experience (especially smaller jumpers) would respond to one of the OPs main points which is the much higher restriction on smaller jumpers.

I know there is not a linear progression because a smaller canopy will behave more aggressively at the same wing-loading as a larger canopy. However, at least based on personal experience, it does not seem to be nearly as dramatic as this chart or the SIM makes it out to be.

I was so concerned for the "big jump" from a 164 to 150. And then from a 150 to a 135. And then from a 135 to a 119. But at my size, I barely noticed a difference at all in these progressions. Yet the SIM insists that a 150 square foot canopy is high performance regardless of wing-loading.

What I did notice is that I could actually make forward progress above 1000 feet on a moderately windy day. I also noticed that landing with some forward speed on a regular basis makes it easier for me to land a little more gracefully.

While many people (including me) probably don't need something much below 109 square feet (1.25ish for me) before 1200 jumps, some talented smaller jumpers deserve to be able to make the progression the larger jumpers are allowed/encouraged to make.

But I only have 700 jumps and am not an expert. Could someone with more experience dealing with smaller jumpers and their canopy progression weigh in on this issue?

Thanks!

Yes, please. It would be great to hear your opinions on this matter. As Becka says: I too fall under the category of "smaller jumper", and I spent my entire student status landing backwards due to winds and low wing loading. When I got my A-license I did some jumps on a 170, before I downsized to a 150, which I did 250 jumps on. I never felt this was a dramatic downsizing, also because I discussed this with all my instructors before I bought the 150. Now I have 300 jumps and just started on a 135 Sabre2, which I plan to stay on for a long time.

My point is: I spent my first good 200 jumps feeling controlled by the canopy. In wind and turbulent weather, I got stuck. I could forget any input on both harness and risers - it was way to heavy.

When I got on the 135, I suddenly felt like I was the pilot. My landings improved dramatically, as in I suddenly had the speed to really fly out the canopy, with our without wind. I finally got to learn how risers can be used, how harness-input can help in turbulent days and so on. I thoroughly feel I am a safer and more skilled pilot now because the canopy gave me the opportunity to really fly with it. Not just hang under it as a helpless little toy. I have a 1,25 wingload on my 135. Does that makes me a dangerous daredevil? Am I pushing it? According to the new suggestion, I am.

Yes, my canopy is smaller, and behaves differently than a 170 loaded 1,2. However, should I have stayed on the 170 when that made me feel out of control? Where I had to learn backward accuracy-landings because I drifted backwards in my landings? Wait till I had 800 jumps before I could ever bother trying to touch the risers?

I believe an important factor in learning to master your canopy is feeling comfortable and in control. Increased wingloading and speed gave me that. That being said, I was one of those who always loved canopy-piloting, and really wanted to get good at it. And I could not wait to downsize, so it would be possible for me to fly the canopy, instead of hanging under it. I have attended canopy courses, and used my coaches and instructors when deciding what level I should go to next.

The point is: if the rules misses out on this, a smaller jumper will have the bare minimum of wingload, and in many cases IMO, feel that he or she barely controls the thing above their head. Is that safe?

I don't know with you guys, but you feel pretty helpless hanging in a canopy that barely moves forward. I do not mean that speed is everything, obviously, but it does matter. And the speed I have on my 135, isn't exactly mind-blowing. It just gives me the speed so that I can actually fly it above the ground for a while, I can use the risers, and I can lean in the harness and stuff happens. Also, the speed makes it easier to land. If I miscalculate, I only adjust. With my spectre 150, I had to hit the exact sweet spot for it to land as smoothly as my 135 does every time.

Look forward to hearing more experienced thoughts on this matter. I still consider myself a rookie, but try hard all the time to learn as much as I can.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 4, 2012, 8:00 AM
Post #65 of 125 (918 views)
Shortcut
Re: [linnths] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Yes, please. It would be great to hear your opinions on this matter. As Becka says: I too fall under the category of "smaller jumper", and I spent my entire student status landing backwards due to winds and low wing loading.
Sounds like you were put into the air when you should have been sitting on the ground.


In reply to:
My point is: I spent my first good 200 jumps feeling controlled by the canopy. In wind and turbulent weather, I got stuck. I could forget any input on both harness and risers - it was way to heavy.
Better decision making would have avoided that "getting stuck".

In reply to:
When I got on the 135, I suddenly felt like I was the pilot. My landings improved dramatically, as in I suddenly had the speed to really fly out the canopy, with our without wind.

This I don't understand. What could be safer than slow and soft on landings?

In reply to:
Not just hang under it as a helpless little toy. ....However, should I have stayed on the 170 when that made me feel out of control?
I guess it's a matter of perspective, isn't it?


In reply to:
Where I had to learn backward accuracy-landings because I drifted backwards in my landings?
Again...decision making.



In reply to:
Wait till I had 800 jumps before I could ever bother trying to touch the risers?
Why is that? Riser control works on every canopy. It appears what you are saying is that you didn't learn a lot on canopy flight before you downsized. THAT is the reason for the rules.

Too many don't bother to learn and practice at a slower pace before they throw themselves into a higher-paced canopy....injuries and fatalities are sometimes the result of that and the rules being proposed are trying to minimize that.

In reply to:
And I could not wait to downsize,....
All too common. Fortunately YOU have survived so far. Some others don't.



In reply to:
The point is: if the rules misses out on this, a smaller jumper will have the bare minimum of wingload, and in many cases IMO, feel that he or she barely controls the thing above their head. Is that safe?
Yes. Much safer than putting them into a fast-paced canopy that is less forgiving of errors.

In reply to:
Also, the speed makes it easier to land. If I miscalculate, I only adjust. With my spectre 150, I had to hit the exact sweet spot for it to land as smoothly as my 135 does every time.
'Miscalculate' is a key word here. Fortunately, so far you have been able to correct in time. Faster gives less time for corrections, obviously.


craigbey  (C 31991)

Mar 4, 2012, 8:24 AM
Post #66 of 125 (904 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Now how do you get the "instructors" and the DZOs AND the S&TAs to do that. Those are the guys that are supposed to be doing that training and it's not getting done in the big scheme of things. Ask yourself why.

Because the bozos who have been driving the bus have not required adequate CC training.

Quote:
You guys are insanely short-changing our youngsters. They only know what you teach them until they can make intelligent decisions for themselves. In your mad rush to prove how brave and "cool" you are, you shoot them in the foot and do them a great disservice by propagating that "faster is cooler" and "you need to downsize now" idiocy. You are implanting that idiocy into their young minds bringing them up to think that those are intelligent decisions. They base their future on what you are telling them now.

You can try to frame it in those terms, and you'll always be stuck where you're at now. You can continue trying to pin the blame on experienced jumpers, but this is a larger problem with our organization, which includes YOU.

WE are members of the US Parachute Association. If you really want to make a difference, push the USPA to require higher CC standards for students and experienced jumpers. Tie advanced licenses to mandated CC training. The new 'B' license CC requirements are good examples, but more training must be included in student programs with an emphasis on CC skills.

There are plenty of people who have been injured -- and some killed -- under canopies that would meet the requirements of the rules you would implement. The w/l charts or other limits would not have saved them. Better CC training programs and ongoing skill development may have.

Quote:
We need the rules because you bozos ignore the recommendations. Yes, you'll ignore the rules too won't you?
Well, at least until a greater power puts the skids on it. Have fun with that.

I'll offer you this promise ... if the FAA or USPA ever implements a rule or restriction which prohibits me from jumping my current canopy or the canopy I happen to be jumping at the time, I will deliver it to you for you to do with as you please.


linnths  (C 92128)

Mar 4, 2012, 10:38 AM
Post #67 of 125 (853 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Sounds like you were put into the air when you should have been sitting on the ground.


I obviously made a mistake here, thinking that exaggerating a tiny but would be understood. Obviously it is not the case that all landings happened this way.

In reply to:
Better decision making would have avoided that "getting stuck".

Same goes here, "getting stuck" was perhaps poor choice of words.. but when you fly a navigator 260 and got a wingload on 0.5, it really does feel like you're stuck.

In reply to:
This I don't understand. What could be safer than slow and soft on landings?

Nothing, but there are other factors to consider as well. E.g.: I jump at a dropzone with a lot of turbulence and variable winds, all the time. Lighter wingload makes the canopy more likely to collapse, or have I been taught wrong?

In reply to:
I guess it's a matter of perspective, isn't it?

obviously, that is why I am asking you guys this question. I would love to get some constructive feedback on this...

In reply to:
Again...decision making

... probably. However, with a 0,5 wingload as a student, it's kinda hard to avoid, even in light winds..



In reply to:
Why is that? Riser control works on every canopy. It appears what you are saying is that you didn't learn a lot on canopy flight before you downsized. THAT is the reason for the rules.

it works, alright, but the effect isn't exactly big... Now you're just being difficult with me ;) Trying to fly on risers with a big canopy, is not without effort. The effort was given, believe me. However, with a bit smaller canopy (and we're not talking about a death-machine exactly, but a sabre2 with a 1,25 wingload) it was easier to use other types of input, and the learning curve was sky-high compare to before.

In reply to:
Too many don't bother to learn and practice at a slower pace before they throw themselves into a higher-paced canopy....injuries and fatalities are sometimes the result of that and the rules being proposed are trying to minimize that.

I agree. However, I argue I do not fall under that category though, despite the impression you might got of me from my last post. My point is that a lot of the time when wingloading is debated, it is always whether or not too much is dangerous. One rarely discuss it the other way around.

I'm gonna be bold here and also assert that a lot of the time when one argues whether light is good or bad, the ones that are in favor of lighter wingloads/or does not see the problem, are average jumpers size-wise that never really had to worry about not coming down from the sky... I am not saying this goes for you, but if you're an average guy, and flew standard-size student canopies, it's likely you had a bit more in wingload than a tiny girl did.

In reply to:
All too common. Fortunately YOU have survived so far. Some others don't.

That is just taken out of it's context. Again, see the entire post... Every canopy can be flown aggressively or docile. Downsizing is not equal with death. It can be, but it does not have to. At least that's what I've been taught...

In reply to:
Yes. Much safer than putting them into a fast-paced canopy that is less forgiving of errors.

Why is it either or? Either you are in a slow and safe canopy, or you're playing with death. The difference in speed from a 150 to a 135, is not that big. It is less forgiving, yes, but still, it's not a death machine when treated conservatively. You can kill yourself in a navigator 260 as well, and in a 135, and in a 78. Flying a 135 does not mean that one is pushing it, automatically. In my case, It's not like I'm doing 240 hook-turns just because I downsized.'Miscalculate' is a key word here. Fortunately, so far you have been able to correct in time. Faster gives less time for corrections, obviously.
In reply to:

Of course. Just as more energy also makes it easier to adjust the angle of attack. I personally found it easier to land when I had a bit more wingload. Am I the only one? I'd like to hear others thoughts on this, that have experienced similar things...

As mentioned above, I think one should also consider what type of landings you are doing. I am not skilled enough to do hook-turns, so I don't. Be that as it is, can't I fly a canopy with a bit more wingload when I do straight-approach landings?

These debates tend to go this direction. Faster canopies = higher risk. Of course they do. But as in all other aspects of this sport, risk can be minimized by advancing gradually, with the help of more skilled instructors on so on. One should be able to question wingloading-issues without being identified as a crazy soon-to-be-statistic. Also, I believe there are more factors to be considered than the number itself, e.g. amount of focus piloting has been given, coaching, skills, attitudes and so on.

Or perhaps I've been a "lucky" skygod with mad skillz, cheating death every jump :) I think my instructors would've stopped me if that was the case, but then again. Perhaps they're just skygods too with imagined mad skillz.. Darn..

Thanks for the feedback though. Agree with a lot of what you're saying in general, except for the comments regarding myself. (As does every self-obsessed skydiver).

I'd like to hear some comments regarding lighter wingload versus heavier, instead of comments derived from my lack of communication skills. I am really an extremely conservative pilot, even with a 135, so it feels kinda unfair to get arrested on false premises based on my exaggerated statements (bad judgment on my part, definitely ;)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 4, 2012, 10:43 AM
Post #68 of 125 (849 views)
Shortcut
Re: [shropshire] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
... oh and you can't drive a car with more that 1600cc and 50bhp (why does anyone EVER need to go faster than the speed limit?)...

Ok, let's go with the speed limit idea. Are you in favor of speed limits, or should every driver just be allowed to do 'whatever' they want?

A speed limit is not all that different from a canopy size/type limit, in that people with knowledge and experience determined a 'safe' limit that allows the majority of participants a good balance between safety and productivity. If you're in favor of speed limits, then you should be in favor of canopy size/type limits, as the concept is the same.

Let's go one step further, and say you're not in favor of speed limits. In that case, do you feel that new drivers or teenage drivers should be allowed to do 'whatever' they want? Or would you lean more toward people getting some time behind the wheel, then taking a high-performance driving school before being allowed to set their own speed limits?

If you answered that everyone should be limit-free on the roads from day one of earning your license, than your thinking is flawed, and opinion on the topic of canopies probably not worth much.

However, if you agree that people might be able to handle driving faster given enough experience and training, again, it's a mirror image of what canopy progressions and training should be like.

I've always liked the driving example, because it's the one thing that almost every jumper can relate to. It's a dynamic and sometimes fast-paced environment, where your safety is potentially at risk. People remember what it was like when they first had a license, and they could barely drive in a straight line and turn up the radio at the same time. Within a few years, people get to the point where operating the vehicle and working with traffic becomes almost second-nature, and they can drive, drink a coffee and send a text all at the same time (I'm not supporting that, but it's the truth).

I'm not saying that all drivers are created equal, but the fact is that it's a skill that people spend a good deal of time developing over the course of many years, si if you look at how much better you are at dirving today, compared to your first year on the road, you can see how much you might have to learn flying a parachute. I'm sure nobody drove around at 16 or 17 thinking, 'Man, I really suck at driving', is was probably more like, 'Man, I'm like Mario Andretti behind the wheel'.

Despite what you thought you knew, the truth turned out to be much different. The same can be said for canopies, and until you've put in a few years and 500-ish jumps, you don't even know what you don't know.

That's why I say continuing education, and restrictions on canopy size/type up until that point. You need less and less education, and less and less restriction as you go, but there needs to be some guidance in place for jumpers to follow, and as we can see whan you give them their choice, they pass on the education and reasonable canopy choices. So make it a rule, and force people who can't see the forest from the trees to follow along.


bofh  (D 13995)

Mar 4, 2012, 10:45 AM
Post #69 of 125 (846 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Also, the speed makes it easier to land. If I miscalculate, I only adjust. With my spectre 150, I had to hit the exact sweet spot for it to land as smoothly as my 135 does every time.
'Miscalculate' is a key word here. Fortunately, so far you have been able to correct in time. Faster gives less time for corrections, obviously.

She has a valid point. The window of opportunity for making a good landing is larger, you can make a faster flare lower or a slower flare higher compared to a parachute at a lower speed. The timing is probably the same, but most people look at the ground and start the flare at what they believe is the right height, not at the right time and after 50 jumps or so most people are able to make adjustments to their flare based on what they see, not based on some timing. The reaction time is not that critical as long as you are not scared and I think that is the most important thing. Scared people are bad at flying and that's why people should downsize in small steps IMO (as well as doing canopy drills so they have the tools to get out of tight spots without getting scared).

Many unexperienced jumpers make small misstakes when landing and end up rolling on the ground quite often. I've seen plenty of people stop tumbling in their landings when they downsize. If you tumble enough times you will get hurt, so in that way a slightly smaller parachute does improve that part of the safety equation. Learning to PLF is another good way to lower the risk of being hurt...

Of course, as you say, it comes with a price. If you still are too late, you hit the ground harder. If you turn near the ground, you'll hit it much harder. If you fly into congested areas of the sky, things happen faster and you risk hitting someone. With a bad body position, there is a greater risk of having line twists. But does it take more time for smaller people to learn the advanced skills of looking where they are flying, reading the sky ahead, applying some (more) brakes if the sky still starts to get congested or not doing toggle turns close to the ground? I've not looked at the statistics, but I can't remember seing anyone above 200 jumps turning themselves into the ground by misstake (hooking too low is a different matter). I've seen some people with between 200 and 300 jumps "experience a gust" as they reach for the ground, but then people are already flying horizontal next to the ground so they usually just hurt their pride as they crash and a faster turn would not make much of a difference there.

For people with some experience I do believe a downsize can reduce their risk, but I can't honestly say if the total risk really goes down or up if one adds up all the risks.


(This post was edited by bofh on Mar 4, 2012, 10:56 AM)


shropshire  (C License)

Mar 4, 2012, 12:43 PM
Post #70 of 125 (805 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

A speed limit is Completely different from flying a smaller/hi-performance canopy... It's more analogous with the Rules set by the DZO.

The Canopy is to Vehicle
whilst
Speed Limit is to rules


Being allowed to fly a smaller copy is more like being allowed to ride a high performance bike (or drive a fast car).

The Speed Limit thing is more like - not being allowed to swoop, or make landing turns say > 90 (or what ever)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 4, 2012, 1:43 PM
Post #71 of 125 (789 views)
Shortcut
Re: [shropshire] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Being allowed to fly a smaller copy is more like being allowed to ride a high performance bike (or drive a fast car).

No it's not. No matter what car or bike you drive, you still have to obey the rules of the road. The speed limit caps your top speed, and things like 'reckless driving' and 'display of speed' stop you from using the potential of any high performance vehicle.

That aside, the point of the comparison is that the speed limit could be looked at as arbitrary and not neccesary, "If you're going to limit me to 65mph, why not just make it 30mph on the highway, that would be safer than 65mph".

But we know from experience that even in the presence of a speed limit, not everyone follows it and not everyone makes good choices on the road. If you took that limit away, you would see even more of that.

So in terms of canopy size/type selection, having no restrictions is the same as having no speed limit. Let's face it, the size and WL of the canopy are what define the top speed, so no limits on the canopy means no limits on the speed. Much like the idea of the speed limit, you can see that without any limitation on canopy size and type, people make poor choices.

Much like the highway, if you have a speed limit, rule following types will obey it. With no limit in place, even those who would follow rules if they were in place might end up going faster than they should. So we do have a limit (on the highway) and should likewise have a limit on canopy size/type.

The other side of this idea, aside from the continuing education, is that the more time jumpers spend at reasonable WL, the better canopy pilots they'll be. While there would be nothing to stop a jumper from trying a new wing every jump, they would be about the same size/performance, so what would be the point? As it sits now, jumpers can ping-pong around between WL and canopy types willy-nilly, and that doesn't help the learning process. Being on one wing for a longer period of time takes the variable of a 'new' canopy out of the equation. If you're a guy determined to follow the rule to the letter and downsize ASAP, you'll still end up with 100 jumps per wing, and that's a good foundation and more jumps than some guys put on a wing when doing a downsizing progression.


becka  (D 30967)

Mar 4, 2012, 2:36 PM
Post #72 of 125 (778 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

I really appreciate you responding to the OPs comments and I know you are trying to make the point of erring on the side of caution, but I believe you being a bit disingenuous. (I really enjoy reading your comments and believe you make good points for some situations, but you are not addressing the particular issue that was brought up in this thread.) The "softness" of the landing is not the reason that smaller jumpers should have somewhat lower wing-loading at the same experience/skill level as a larger jumper. It is the responsiveness when flying it.

Moreover, I believe the OP and I have both indicated that our landing were SOFTER under a slightly higher wing-loading that allowed some maneuverability and made it easier to have a good landing. SLOW and SOFT can be very different. Elevator rides and turbulence that no one else feels is not so much fun. (And when no one else feels the turbulence or the wind comes in stronger after you jump, the decision that gets to be made is whether you make the second jump.)

There are many places where it would take 20 years for a very active small jumper to get her A license and the rest of the 500 jumps recommended by the SIM or required by these new rules if she were to sit every time her .8 wing-loaded canopy would fly backwards. If there is a way for this same jumper to fly safely on a smaller (but still relatively docile canopy), why should her progression be so limited?

Finally, if it is so dangerous for this small jumper to be at 1.3 or 1.4 wing-loading before 1200 jumps, how on earth is it okay for the guy weighing 117 kg to be at that wing-loading with 201 jumps? Shouldn't he be required/recommended to have "slower and softer" landings too?

This final point is the issue I would really like to see addressed. Not are regulations or recommendations better, not is conservative canopy flying best for learning, and not how should one decide on jumping when loading a canopy at .5 wing-loading. These all interesting discussions, but it appears that they are causing the original question to be ignored.

We have rules/recommendations that have a massive discrepancy. In particular, many women will be among those most restricted. At least some of us that are affected would like some solid reasons for the exact severity of these restrictions on the smallest jumpers in comparison with the larger jumps.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 4, 2012, 5:23 PM
Post #73 of 125 (743 views)
Shortcut
Re: [linnths] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Why is it either or? Either you are in a slow and safe canopy, or you're playing with death. The difference in speed from a 150 to a 135, is not that big.
Agreed. Going from 150-135 is not an either/or situation.
Agreed. Flying a 135 is not necessarily "playing with death".
Rapidly downsizing from a large one down to a small one IS "playing with death"....which is the point of the rules discussion.

We are talking about rapid downsizing from conservative to radical loadings. We are discussing potential rules to enforce a more conservative downloading progression.

In reply to:
It is less forgiving, yes, but still, it's not a death machine when treated conservatively.
Conservatively. This idea of more strict rules for downsizing all came about because people are NOT treating them conservatively. It's come about because people fail to realize that not every landing is going to conservative. I don't know of many people who fly hot rods because they want to be conservative with the performance capabilities.

In reply to:
You can kill yourself in a navigator 260 as well, and in a 135, and in a 78. Flying a 135 does not mean that one is pushing it, automatically. In my case, It's not like I'm doing 240 hook-turns just because I downsized.
You may not realize how often that comment is used to justify rapid downsizing. We hear it all the time.

In reply to:
...personally found it easier to land when I had a bit more wing load. Am I the only one? I'd like to hear others thoughts on this, that have experienced similar things...
Please define "easier". It's an ambiguous term.
Does your definition also include being able to set it down in a small area...say, somebody's backyard with trees and fences and power lines around it?

In reply to:
...can't I fly a canopy with a bit more wing load when I do straight-approach landings?
Yes, of course you can. And that's always been part of the justification for the rapid downsizing..."I just do straight-in landings." Unfortunately, they are not addressing the need to be able to do other types of landings as well...under a canopy that's going to respond more quickly having less room for error. You will, one of these days, be in a situation where that straight-in landing is not going to work out well.

In reply to:
These debates tend to go this direction. Faster canopies = higher risk. Of course they do. But as in all other aspects of this sport, risk can be minimized by advancing gradually, with the help of more skilled instructors on so on.
Bingo. That's the point of it all. Advancing gradually is the point of the rules discussion and hopeful implementation.

Skilled instructors is a separate issue.
I contend, and I stand by my comment, that we, as a sport are severely lacking in quality instruction. Having a rating means almost literally nothing these days by way of instructing skills. Being dependent on an instructor could be hazardous to your health. Ask yourself a question; why does one instructor give conservative answers and this other one gives radical answers?

If you assume that the old fart instructor giving conservative answers is behind the times and an old fuddy-duddy....you may be a candidate for the Mad Skillz group. If you think the one saying you'll be just fine under that 135 after flying the 210...you may be a candidate for the incidents forum. Please don't get off on the old-fart vs young whippersnapper insanity. It's about the advice...not the age of the advisor.


In reply to:
One should be able to question wing loading-issues without being identified as a crazy soon-to-be-statistic.
Without a doubt. Hell, if that was the case, all those swoopers flying sub-100 canopies all should have their coffins already made and waiting.
I get the impression that you are getting somewhat defensive when nobody is saying that you are a "crazy soon-to-be-statistic".

In reply to:
Also, I believe there are more factors to be considered than the number itself, e.g. amount of focus piloting has been given, coaching, skills, attitudes and so on.
Agreed. Now, can you quantify those factors? No.
We can, however, quantify jump numbers. And yes, jump numbers are a good generalization for skill level. Is that saying it applies across the board? No. It's simply a generalization; it's a recommendation at this time, if you will. Making those recommendations into rules could very well for slowing down the Mad Skillz people, IMHO. It allows for more time and learning opportunities under conservative canopies before progressing to more radical ones. That's a good thing for the sport. YMMV.


Now, to address your other questions and statements....

In reply to:
...except for the comments regarding myself. (As does every self-obsessed skydiver).
"Self-obsessed skydiver". Yep, those are the ones being addressed and those are the ones that are damaging our sport unnecessarily. If you are not one of those, then any comments made towards that group don't apply to you so why the defensiveness? Just askin'.

In reply to:
I'd like to hear some comments regarding lighter wing load versus heavier,
What you seem to be looking for is:
-Yes. Injuries and fatalities happen under low wing loadings.
-Yes. Lower wing loadings may not penetrate brisk winds as well as higher ones.
-With respect to landings, No. Lower wing loadings, flying slower and approaching the ground slower are "safer".
-Setting a low wing loading down in a small area is easier than doing it under a high wing loading.
Suggestion:
If you think that is not true, try it sometime.
(Before you do this, please be fully aware and fully skilled at avoiding or handling stalls on your canopy.)
Set out a circle in the landing area and put your canopy down in it...while visualizing trees, fences and power lines surrounding it. Find out how big that circle has to be for you to be able to sink it in safely over those obstacles.

I promise you, you will be more likely to accomplish that in a smaller circle with a lower wing loading as opposed to that hot rod needing more speed to fly without stalling. It's why accuracy competitors don't fly high wing loadings.

Thanks for your comments, eh?


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 4, 2012, 5:54 PM
Post #74 of 125 (730 views)
Shortcut
Re: [becka] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I really appreciate you responding to the OPs comments and I know you are trying to make the point of erring on the side of caution, but I believe you being a bit disingenuous. (I really enjoy reading your comments and believe you make good points for some situations, but you are not addressing the particular issue that was brought up in this thread.) The "softness" of the landing is not the reason that smaller jumpers should have somewhat lower wing-loading at the same experience/skill level as a larger jumper. It is the responsiveness when flying it.
Thanks for your comments. I'll admit to maybe not fully understanding what you guys meant by "softness". It is an ambiguous term and I was assuming that it was meaning setting down with little forward and little vertical speed....easier accomplished with low wingloadings.


In reply to:
There are many places where it would take 20 years for a very active small jumper to get her A license and the rest of the 500 jumps recommended by the SIM or required by these new rules if she were to sit every time her .8 wing-loaded canopy would fly backwards.
OK...here you are saying, "Regardless of the safety factors involved, I'm going to jump even if I have to land backwards".
If that is what you are saying, then I have to question your decision-making abilities. Yes, and that questioning comes from my stance of erring on the side of safety.

You do realize that that attitude is what is causing many of today's problems. That attitude very distinctly defines the Mad Skillz group..."Regardless of the recommendations, I'm going to fly that hot rod without having the necessary skills to do so safely because I want to do it now, not later."


In reply to:
If there is a way for this same jumper to fly safely on a smaller (but still relatively docile canopy), why should her progression be so limited?
No it should not be limited on sizing alone but that is all we really have to go on right now because we can't quantify the other factors. Yes it should definitely be limited based on skill set. The good news is that yes, there is a way. It's the slow and sure downsizing method of learning canopy skills on more forgiving canopies and then practicing them until you are fully conversant with it. THEN move down one size and do it all over again before you go one size smaller. It's simple really.

The question, and the debate, stems from differences of opinion on determining whether the jumper's skill sets are adequate for the next lower size. Some advisors will say yes, some will say no. Unfortunately, those wanting to downsize rapidly will ALWAYS listen to the one that tells them yes and will ALWAYS argue with the one that tells them no. And those differences of opinion and all comes from the fact that those "other" factors cannot be quantified.

In reply to:
Finally, if it is so dangerous for this small jumper to be at 1.3 or 1.4 wing-loading before 1200 jumps, how on earth is it okay for the guy weighing 117 kg to be at that wing-loading with 201 jumps? Shouldn't he be required/recommended to have "slower and softer" landings too?

That bit has already been questioned and I don't know why they come up with that and I haven't seen a valid explanation of that. It does appear to more severely restrict smaller jumpers. On the face of it, I'm sitting here thinking, like you, "WTH is THAT all about?"
I can only assume that what we've seen is a first-draft serving as a basis for further discussion and development.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 4, 2012, 6:01 PM
Post #75 of 125 (725 views)
Shortcut
Re: [linnths] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Back to the OP...

My opinion:
Yes, I think you guys are on the right track.
No, I don't think your example as posted in your OP is workable. It needs much more consideration and eventual adjustments.

Sorry about all the side discussions going on but it is to be expected. Downsizing is a sore point with many because we have no ability to quantify many of the factors in defining "safe" flying and opinions are all over the place with little considered compromise possible. You will always have those who insist that they are special because they have skills over and above the recommendations.

Only heavily enforced rules will slow that down.

Good luck on coming to a consensus on what is best for the general population. It's going to be a heated discussion for you guys.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)