Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Safety rules and USPA

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2012, 11:36 AM
Post #26 of 142 (942 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>We the jumpers need to realize that the BOD does not really care about the
>jumpers anymore.

The BOD is made up of people. And I don't know all the people on the BOD but I do know a lot of them.

Larry Hill. He was one of the supporters of our BSR proposal and gave a pretty impassioned speech about how tired he was of losing friends of his, He got a little teary as he was talking about being a DZO at a place where his friends were getting killed.

Jan Meyer. She can be a pain in the butt but her heart is in the right place, and really does care about keeping jumpers safe.

Jay Stokes. Anyone who has met him knows how much he cares about jumpers.

BJ Worth. I've talked to him a few times about safety issues and he has been proactive in dealing with them.

I think saying "the BOD doesn't care because they don't do anything" is like saying "Nationals competitors don't give a shit about anything but competition because they aren't teaching canopy courses."


Ron

Mar 8, 2012, 11:44 AM
Post #27 of 142 (940 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I think saying "the BOD doesn't care because they don't do anything"

Too bad that is not what I said.

What I said is the BOD (note, not ALL the individual members, the collective board) cares more about representing the PIA and the DZO's than the individual jumpers.

But I would welcome you to point out where the BOD sided with the jumpers and not the PIA or DZO's.......

Quote:
I think saying "the BOD doesn't care because they don't do anything" is like saying "Nationals competitors don't give a shit about anything but competition because they aren't teaching canopy courses."

Nationals Competitors are not in position to pass rules to make canopy coaching mandatory.... So that is why they have not done it. The BOD IS and still has not done it.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2012, 12:54 PM
Post #28 of 142 (924 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>What I said is the BOD (note, not ALL the individual members, the collective board)
>cares more about representing the PIA and the DZO's than the individual jumpers.

Yes, I have heard that a lot from the Internet as well. When I have dealt with them directly I have found them to be a lot more interested in representing jumpers than PIA.

They also represent DZ's, which I think makes sense - since most DZO's are jumpers and we would not have skydiving without DZO's.

>Nationals Competitors are not in position to pass rules to make canopy coaching
>mandatory...

No, but they are in a position to actually coach canopy flying. Passing rules does nothing without the education that goes along with it.

What we lack now is education, not rules. Rules _might_ help people get that education, but it is not at all a guarantee.


Ron

Mar 8, 2012, 12:57 PM
Post #29 of 142 (921 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Yes, I have heard that a lot from the Internet as well. When I have dealt with them directly I have found them to be a lot more interested in representing jumpers than PIA.

The BOD's actions do not represent that. Like I said before show me some examples of the BOD representing jumpers and not the DZO's or PIA.


shattenjager  (C 41561)

Mar 8, 2012, 1:26 PM
Post #30 of 142 (910 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sooperswooper] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Then, I agree, because at this point, they should make MANDATORY for all B, C and D already licensed skydivers to demonstrate their canopy piloting proficiency as well at their license renewal.
Number of jumps doesn't mean that someone knows how to fly a canopy at its full.
How many 'x000' jumps skydivers do only RW and then spiral down opening at 2000 ft every time?
I did at least 30 H&P pulling at 5500 ft and worked on all the drills suggested from Brian Germain articles, I took a canopy piloting course and I will take a speedflying training also, I love canopy piloting, for me is the most difficult, challenging and rewarding part of the skydive, in aviation the best pilot is the one who lands the plane perfectly! I know jumpers with more than 1000 jumps that don't even know what happen to the canopy with different inputs, while, me as a noob I do.
I jump mostly in Perris and Elsinore and I see how many oldtimers consider the 3 legs landing pattern 'optional', more than one time I asked them why they don't land properly, they just say, 'Oh sorry, you are right'.
I don't like the fact that since we are noobs, we have to pay for others mistakes. Some skydivers have skygod attitude no matter how many jumps, 20 or 10000, especially here in this forum, people judge other people without even knowing them, just based of jump numbers.
Canopy piloting should be THE priority in AFF, not freefall, nobody explained to me WHY I had to use rears or front risers inputs, what the canopy does in flight, etc, they just told me to do it. I didn't even know that you can pilot with harness inputs, now I do it all the time, I fly a Spectre 190 loaded at 0.98-1.0 and I will keep flying it until I won't be able squeeze anything else from that canopy, no matter if it will takes 20 jumps or 200.
I don't care to run the downsize race, it really doesn't matter, I like to feel in control of my canopy, not being in control.
Attitude and mentality matters, jumps number comes second.
I love the sport but make mandatory certain things would ruin it, again, I will not pay for others mistakes, I will for mine.


(This post was edited by shattenjager on Mar 8, 2012, 1:36 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2012, 1:36 PM
Post #31 of 142 (901 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>Like I said before show me some examples of the BOD representing jumpers and
>not the DZO's or PIA.

Landing area separation. Annoying for DZO's, may save some jumpers.

The ISP. Annoying for schools, good for jumpers.

Killing the Indiana skydiving bill. Good for BOTH jumpers and DZ's.

180 day repack cycle. Helped jumpers and DZ's. Opposed by some PIA members.

Killing the FAA TAWS requirement. Helps skydivers and DZ's. Didn't help PIA.


Ron

Mar 8, 2012, 2:15 PM
Post #32 of 142 (881 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The ISP. Annoying for schools, good for jumpers.

Most schools (Read: DZO's) liked it.

Quote:
Killing the Indiana skydiving bill. Good for BOTH jumpers and DZ's.

Yep, good for DZO's... That was kinda my point. The fact that jumpers also benefited was nice but the major restriction would have been on DZO's.

Quote:
Killing the FAA TAWS requirement. Helps skydivers and DZ's.

Oh lord, that was for the DZO's and you know it. The fact that jumpers benefited was a nice addition but the restriction was going to hurt DZO's.

I'll give you half credit for the 180 repack cycle... But last I checked the majority of the PIA wanted it. Again, the PIA supported it.

Nice try. But I think you really just proved my point. "Show me some examples of the BOD representing jumpers and not the DZO's or PIA". Your examples have benefited DZO's or the PIA and to some extent jumpers, but not the jumpers over the DZO's or PIA.


(This post was edited by Ron on Mar 8, 2012, 2:17 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2012, 2:19 PM
Post #33 of 142 (879 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>Your examples have benefited DZO's or the PIA and to some extent jumpers, but
>not the jumpers over the DZO's or PIA.

The landing area group pledge certainly did benefit jumpers over DZO's.

However, in most cases, things that benefit jumpers benefit DZO's as well - and vice versa. Heck, a canopy education requirement that reduced fatalities would benefit both.


Ron

Mar 8, 2012, 2:46 PM
Post #34 of 142 (870 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The landing area group pledge certainly did benefit jumpers over DZO's.

That's one..... Congrats! But the majority are for the DZO's and PIA. If the jumpers get a benefit that is not the same as looking out for the jumpers.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2012, 3:06 PM
Post #35 of 142 (862 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>But the majority are for the DZO's and PIA. If the jumpers get a benefit that is not
>the same as looking out for the jumpers.

That's like saying that the NTSB helps make cars safer but isn't looking out for drivers.

Helping DZO's helps skydivers, and vice versa. The DZO's I know - Melanie, Hammo, Kirk, Buzz - ARE skydivers, and are also generally the people willing to get most involved in USPA. They as a rule want to reduce fatalities while not being nazis, and thus are generally aligned with what skydivers want.

It almost sounds like you'd want to scuttle any effort by USPA to reduce canopy deaths if it helped out DZ's as well, which I'm sure isn't the case. 90% of the time their interests are the same - being able to jump safely at some reasonable price.

Part of this is instituting safety rules intended to reduce injuries and fatalities. This is another common goal. It helps jumpers by keeping them alive and uninjured, and it helps DZ's by reducing lawsuits and negative publicity. A win-win scenario.


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Mar 8, 2012, 4:04 PM
Post #36 of 142 (845 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

So how exactly would a wingload BSR work for current jumpers? If I am jumping a canopy that would be restricted to me under this new proposed BSR, would I be grandfathered in?
Also, if that is the case, would you expect a rash of lower number jumpers scrambling to get the smallest canopy they think they might want to jump to try and be grandfathered in?
Also, would you be grandfathered in on the smallest canopy you own, or the smallest canopy you have successfully jumped?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2012, 4:35 PM
Post #37 of 142 (832 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Here's the letter we wrote to USPA about ten years ago:
==================================================
Over the past few years, we have watched as more and more skydivers injure and kill themselves under high performance canopies. In 99% of the cases, this happens to a jumper who does not have the education and experience to fly his canopy safely. In the majority of cases, a larger canopy would have prevented the fatality or mitigated the injury. We, the undersigned, call on USPA to increase their role in canopy training to help prevent these sorts of fatalities in the future.

It is our position that only education can prevent accidents like these. Modern, heavily loaded high performance canopies can be flown safely only after sufficient education and/or experience has been obtained by the jumper. We ask USPA to do the following:

-Develop canopy skills requirements for the B, C, and D licenses that build upon the initial "A" license canopy skills. They should include canopy control classroom training, practical exercises, and a written and practical test. Once these are in place, add canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the A through D license, with a grandfather clause so this does not affect people currently jumping high wing loadings. As with other skills, restricted licenses would be available for jumpers who choose not to demonstrate HP canopy skills.

-To prevent exceptional jumpers from being held back unnecessarily, allow any instructor, I/E or S+TA to waiver these requirements based on a demonstration of canopy skills.

-Develop a Canopy Instructor (CI) rating which focuses on skills required to safely land heavily loaded high performance canopies. Currently, many jumpers receive no practical HP canopy training at all; it is possible to progress through the ISP jumping only a 288 square foot canopy. With the rapid development of very high performance canopies, canopy skills are as critical for skydiver survival (if not more critical) than freefall skills. The intent of the CI would be to teach the canopy skills required for the new licenses, and to waiver those who demonstrate the skill required to progress to small canopies more quickly than their jump numbers would ordinarily allow.

We recognize that any additional restrictions placed on skydivers should be considered very carefully; skydiving has never been a sport of heavy regulation, and regulations alone will not keep anyone safe. However, new regulations are falling into place already. Individual DZ's are implementing canopy loading restrictions with no education, no commonality and no way to "waiver out" of the requirements. We feel that USPA could implement a canopy training program that will educate more jumpers, be less restrictive and keep even pilots of very high performance canopies alive and jumping.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 8, 2012, 5:04 PM
Post #38 of 142 (825 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Congratulations, Bill. You and your group went the extra mile. You 'busted your ass' to get something done. And that's a good thing and we, as jumpers, appreciate it, believe me.

Now having said that, why is that you HAD to "go the extra mile and bust your ass to get it done when it should have been taken up and run through by the BOD themselves?

It's like they were ignoring the squeaking until somebody tapped them on the shoulder and sucker punched them to get some action. I don't understand why other than what Ron is saying.

The squeaky wheel...again, thanks for squeaking and getting something done out of the BOD.

Fortunately, we at least have someone like Rich who is at least listening and trying. Too bad the entire BOD can't do that without having to be figuratively sucker punched.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 8, 2012, 7:12 PM
Post #39 of 142 (805 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Here's the letter we wrote to USPA about ten years ago:

Thanks for bringing this back, let's look at it-
Quote:
We ask USPA to do the following:

-Develop canopy skills requirements for the B, C, and D licenses that build upon the initial "A" license canopy skills

Didn't happen

Quote:
-To prevent exceptional jumpers from being held back unnecessarily, allow any instructor, I/E or S+TA to waiver these requirements based on a demonstration of canopy skills.

Didn't happen, but without the first things, it's kind of irrelevant

Quote:
-Develop a Canopy Instructor (CI) rating which focuses on skills required to safely land heavily loaded high performance canopies.

Does not exist

Quote:
We feel that USPA could implement a canopy training program that will educate more jumpers, be less restrictive and keep even pilots of very high performance canopies alive and jumping.

Wonderful sentiment, too bad it seems they didn't share it.

Remember when I said that I personally contacted the chair of the safety and training comittee? I made many of the same points, along with being open to other ideas/avenues, and offered to help in any way possible. That was probably about 8 years ago.

So your letter was 10 years ago, and my contact was 8 years ago, and none of the ideas put forth have become a reality. That's 8 and 10 years Bill. Not 3 months until the next meeting, not a year until after the next election, it's something in the neighborhood of a decade.

An entire war was begun, fought and ended in that time Bill. The US went to war, did it's business, and the troops are on their way home in less time. Not in less time than it took the BOD to act, less time then has passed since you and I, long time dues-paying members, spoke for common sense and the good of the sport, and got nowhere.

I applaud your efforts to side with the BOD to some extent, and the truth is I don't believe that their an 'axis of evil', but how do you convene and reconvene, year in and year out for a decade without making any progress in this area? Again, as one of the few areas we have hard numbers to look to, I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say 'no' progress.

There's no WL BSR or chart to follow. There is no training requirement beyond jump 25 of any kind. There is no 'official' canopy control course designed, built and administered by the USPA. There is no USPA rating or training provided to instructors in the area of canopy control.

Nothing, Bill. Not a thing, and I don't feel the least but bad about pointing it out. They should be ashamed to spend our money to conduct dozens of BOD meetings over the last decade, and not touch this issue in any meaningful way.

I'll admit that I don't have the time to donate toward being on the BOD, but the simple fact is that the members of the BOD volunteered for that position, all of them knowing full well what was expected of them. They made the choice to take on the responsibility of 'manning the ship' and I expect them to fullfill it. Thus far, it seems to me they have failed.


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Mar 8, 2012, 7:19 PM
Post #40 of 142 (802 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Okay, so I and others would be grandfathered in - but would it be only for the current wingloading? Would it be only for a canopy that I currently own, or say I had been jumping a friends Stiletto loaded at 1.8 - would I be able to continue to jump that? This is all figurative of course, I am just trying to see how exactly the grandfather clause would work in this case.
And, do you think we would see a spike in people buying/borrowing small canopies to insure they would be able to jump a higher wingload than the BSR would allow before it went into effect? Did anything like that happen in the Netherlands when they instituted their canopy rules?

Edit to add the question, in regards to the B, C, and D licenses and proposed canopy skills requirements, would those have to include high performance flights/landings? For example, if I wanted to get my D, and I had 500+ jumps but cared nothing for swooping, but I wanted to fly a Cobalt loaded at 1.8 - what kind of proficiency would I have to show to get a D license? I understand that any landing under a high performance canopy is technically a high performance landing, just curious as to how it would break down in the skills between those who want to fly a high performance wing vs those who want to swoop...


(This post was edited by crotalus01 on Mar 8, 2012, 7:26 PM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 8, 2012, 7:30 PM
Post #41 of 142 (798 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Okay, so I and others would be grandfathered in - but would it be only for the current wingloading? Would it be only for a canopy that I currently own, or say I had been jumping a friends Stiletto loaded at 1.8 - would I be able to continue to jump that? This is all figurative of course, I am just trying to see how exactly the grandfather clause would work in this case.
And, do you think we would see a spike in people buying/borrowing small canopies to insure they would be able to jump a higher wingload than the BSR would allow before it went into effect? Did anything like that happen in the Netherlands when they instituted their canopy rules?

Here's the thing about any of the proposals that have been floating around, they're all progressive in that the more jumps you make, the less restrictions you'll have.

So if we take every jumper who is beyond the chart on the day it was implemented, and just wrote them off, there would still be a significant number of existing jumpers who would be in line with the new regs, or would fall in line (no pun intended) as their jump numbers came up.

Beyond that, in 3 or 4 years, between all the jumpers who bring their jump numbers up, all the jumpers who quit, and all the jumpers who take up the sport during that time, the majority of effected jumpers would be 'in line' with the program.

It's not a perfect solution, and there will be some 'teething problems' on the outset, but if you look just down the road slightly, you can see where it would just become common place, and generally accepted.

I'll make the old comparison to pull altitudes. It used to be 'anything goes' (like canopy selection is now), and then they made a BSR with some hard numbers. Sure there were some unhappy jumpers, and some that thumbed their nose at the BSR and still pulled low, but 99.99% of them either eventaully just gave in or gave up jumping. Everyone esle just started pulling higher, and the vast majority of jumpers today have never known skydiving without a pull altitude BSR, and it's rarely questioned or intentionally broken.

How is canopy selection any different?


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Mar 8, 2012, 7:46 PM
Post #42 of 142 (791 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks Dave. I am not totally against a w/l BSR, but I am not totally for one either - thats why I am asking questions to better understand the impact of one should it pass.
Also, would it be strictly a w/l BSR or would it also include minimum jump numbers for semi-elliptical, fully elliptical and x-braced canopies?


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 8, 2012, 8:01 PM
Post #43 of 142 (783 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Ideally, it would be more of a 'program', to include Wl, canopy type by jump number, and have canopy control classes required in order to earn a higher license, like an intermediate class required to get a 'B', an advanced class required for a 'C', and an expert class for the 'D'.

The idea is to both inform and guide jumpers on their path to becoming good canopy pilots who know and understand the elements of good airmanship, and how to effectively work with the range of environmental factors out there.

The other thing it does is bestow a level of importance on the whole thing that's not currently present. Yes, some jumpers give canopy piloting it's due respect, but it's easy for a jumper to say they have no interest in swooping, and just want to do RW, and they don't need to really pay canopy control much attention.

When you have an ongoing and required program surroudning it, it gives it the importance in the community that it's deserves.

No offence, but for all I care we could give every jumper who is beyond the 'program' at the time it's implemented a 'free pass', to just go about their merry way forever. No restrictions, no classes required ever, you can jump whatever you want and get any license without taking a canopy control class. It's a drop in the bucket, and not even worth worrying about. In time, you'll all 'grow up' and either quit the sport or just make enough jumps that you'll be beyond the 'program' anyway.

If the only hurdle is some unhappy jumpers currently in the 200 to 500 jump range, give them whatever they want to make them happy, and let's focus on everyone esle.

Of course, this is all just 'pie in the sky' talk, as nothing of the sort will ever actaully come to being.


Ron

Mar 9, 2012, 4:55 AM
Post #44 of 142 (750 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

If the DZO's and PIA dont want something the BOD will not do it. And that is backed up by history.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Mar 9, 2012, 5:15 AM
Post #45 of 142 (745 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

What about the new B license proficiency card. That was implemented soley based on the need to continue canopy education past the A license. It was also implemented in an effort to require a canopy course prior to B license application. So every new jumper from this point forth, in theory should have taken a basic course that uses the syllabus in the SIM. Section 6-10 and 6-11. It is a first step to get all of the canopy courses teaching similar stuff or at least they all should encorporate what is written in the syllabus. The card is basic, I agree but it is a great starting point to maybe adding an advanced one for C or D license or maybe even a high performance proficiency card.

This whole initiative came out of Safety and Training and in no way had PIA or any one manufacturer in mind. Although, we did reach out to many different danopy coaches and some did infact have connections through sponsorship but that would be one hell of a reach.

Or

How about the new wingsuit instructor rating being looked at. Although if that is implemented at anytime I guess you could say it is for the DZO's because they will be less likely to have a tail strike.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 9, 2012, 5:26 AM
Post #46 of 142 (734 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The card is basic, I agree but it is a great starting point

Starting point? Did you see Bill's letter from a decade ago and my story from 8 years ago?

The BOD has a long way to go, and a lot of actual progress to be made before I'm willing to change my tune. Starting points are all well and good, and would have been noteworthy 7, 6, or even 5 years ago. At this point I'll need more that 'getting started' before I'm willing to accept that the BOD is meeting it's responsibilities and honoring the commitment they made to the membership when they took the job.

What we need (and have needed for many, many years) is for the USPA to set the standard and make canopy selection and education an important part of the skydiving culture. They have the power to do so, and this is what's required to change the tide and get things moving in the right direction.

I'll come back to the time issue, but let's say the BOD took action 10 years ago. Let's also say that it took three years to get all the ducks in a row, and implement required canopy control courses and some sort of WL regs for jumpers as they advance through the licenses.

What that would mean is that every jumper who earned a license in the last 7 years would have taken a canopy control course. Every jumper who has less than 7 years in the sport would only know skydiving with a WL reg in place, and required canopy control courses that coincide with a licesne. Think of the number of jumpers that would have been effected if the BOD had acted responsibly.

All that opportunity has been lost, and that loss isn't easliy forgetten.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Mar 9, 2012, 7:06 AM
Post #47 of 142 (719 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Dave,

I cant say I dont agree with what you are saying, in fact it is the reason I ran for the BOD in the first place amongst other issues.

Anyhow, The card was implemented on my personal second meeting. The first meeting was basically useless because we were sworn in and had to get to know the other members and be assinged committees. So, the first real meeting I personally was involved in yielded a new canopy requirement. Jay Stokes mentioned that he was impressed with how fast we got this through. Myself along with other members pushed as hard as possible. Merriah Eakins, Tony Thacker, and myself were first time directors. We each put 100% all of our effort into this.
I do understand that opinions of the BOD will not change immediately or may not change as long as some are still there from years past. I do promise you that we are trying our hardest but at some point I want to stop answering for BODs of past.
You can imagine how frustrating it is getting blasted online, in person, email, phone calls with complaints. I cant make any excuses or even throw daggers at those that may have been responsible for inaction and I wont. With that said, if the time and effort spent online bashing how bad it is or how bad it has been was spent on helping, I thinkwe can make progress. Call me naive but I do want to change the instructor curriculm do include much more canopy education and evaluation. The problem is the elections are now around the corner and the BOD may change dramatically. That is why the 3 year term will help out a bit, giving BOD members time to start and FINISH projects. I will run again for National Director but nothing is guaranteed. I will promise you that if I continue that canopy continueing education, advanced canopy education, standardized canopy trianing, will continue to be my main focus.
Currently, we are working on the wingsuit instructor proposal and gathering as much intel as possible to see if this is the direction we need to go with WS's. If so then like you said in ten years we can say we were ahead of the curve and all of the canopy critisisms will not apply to the current BOD.

Just throwing some thoughts out.
Rich


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 9, 2012, 8:47 AM
Post #48 of 142 (697 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>If the DZO's and PIA dont want something the BOD will not do it.

DZO's didn't want separated landing areas. The BOD did it.

I really don't think there's any conspiracy to support PIA and DZO's at the expense of skydivers. I know most of the people on the board and they're just not like that. The biggest problem, I think, is one that plagues many organizations - the whole process has gotten so cumbersome that it takes forever to get anything done unless you push really hard.


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Mar 9, 2012, 12:09 PM
Post #49 of 142 (660 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks Dave.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 9, 2012, 12:48 PM
Post #50 of 142 (654 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crotalus01] Safety rules and USPA [In reply to] Can't Post

>Okay, so I and others would be grandfathered in - but would it be only for the
>current wingloading?

That's the intent, yes.

>And, do you think we would see a spike in people buying/borrowing small canopies
>to insure they would be able to jump a higher wingload than the BSR would allow
>before it went into effect?

I doubt it. We haven't seen a spike in people getting B licenses so they wouldn't have to fill out the new canopy control card.

>Did anything like that happen in the Netherlands when they instituted their canopy rules?

Good question. Anyone from the Netherlands want to comment?

>in regards to the B, C, and D licenses and proposed canopy skills requirements,
>would those have to include high performance flights/landings?

To some degree, yes, because you'd want them to demonstrate the ability to control their canopy close to the ground. The intent of this is not to require people to do high performance landings (or to train them to be swoopers) so that would be minimal. The "high performance landing" demonstration might just be a front riser approach for example, or a front riser 90 to landing.

> For example, if I wanted to get my D, and I had 500+ jumps but cared nothing for
>swooping, but I wanted to fly a Cobalt loaded at 1.8 - what kind of proficiency would
>I have to show to get a D license?

I'd go with:

flat turn 90 degrees at X feet (50? 100? something low)
flare turn at least 45 degrees
land crosswind and in no wind
land reliably within a 10 meter circle (already in license requirements, just have to tighten this one)
initiate a high performance landing with either double front risers or front riser turn to landing
land on slight uphills and downhills (maybe - not sure about this one)
land with rear risers


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)