Almost all of these jumpers were jumping a wing load that would be considered aggressive. And most would agree that the wing loads were above the skill level of most of the jumpers.
I propose that the USPA do something about this. While education would be the best answer, the scope of this and the needed curriculum would prove to be a gigantic task.
Several other organizations have enacted regulations, and I think it is time that the USPA does the same.
Brian Germain a very well know canopy pilot and designer has a basic outline that would be very easy to write, follow, and enforce.
Wing loading should correspond to jump # up to 500 jumps. 100 jumps Max 1.1 Wing load 200 jumps Max 1.2 Wing load 300 jumps Max 1.3 Wing load 400 jumps Max 1.4 Wing load 500 jumps Max 1.5 Wing load
This would hopefully delay these young jumpers from getting a canopy over their heads before the have the knowledge and experience to handle it.
It would also fit right into the new license structure. At 500 jumps and a "D" License a jumper can jump a wing load that they feel comfertable with.
While they are under this protective blanket they could use the available resources to learn more about canopy flight and if they wish attend some of the canopy schools available.
Skydiving is a sport that has dangers....One of the jobs of the USPA is to enact BSR's to protect the population from their own bad choices. This is why we have minumun pull altitudes. I think it is time we have maximum wing loadings for less experienced jumpers. This will give them the time to learn how to handle the added dangers of highly loaded canopies.
well we've already had this discussion so i'll just say i'll be sure to talk to my regional directors about implementing training programs that would actually make a difference in overall safety vs simply increasing the jump numbers of the next divot to hook in under a canopy they still havent learned how to fly.
While you may not get this passed your efforts are in the right direction. People should be made aware about wing loading and training. The side effect of your efforts might be to increase thinking to avoid regulation.
make sure your plan also includes some measure to ensure its enforced, say every time a jumper boards an aircraft after lunch? mandatory canopy size labels on the outsides of gear?
I appreciate the fact that people want to prevent injuries, but I think having mandatory canopy control class would have a better result than mandating wing loading.
Since we already have our student training program, why not add to it a canopy control class that you need to get signed off in order to get whatever canopy you'd like - which would include demoing the canopy you'd like to get and showing that you are capable of handling it. Due to USPA, we now have to have a coach through our first 20 jumps - why not add the canopy control into the 20 jump requirement? And, if the person giving the canopy control class says you're not capable of handling the canopy, you can't get that one.
FYI - Scott Miller (PD) gave an excellent canopy control class that I took and learned a lot from. I'm in no hurry to downsize as I have a ton that I can learn on my current canopy and am a conservative jumper.
And then the courses have to meet a standard... Someone has to regulate that standard.... Materials have to be created.... And hell not everyoine is following the new student program anyway.
Due to USPA, we now have to have a coach through our first 20 jumps - why not add the canopy control into the 20 jump requirement?
According to the SIM, the dive flows for these category jumps do have canopy control sections. As do the regular AFF categories. Its just that most instructors do not teach this part or have their students do it. So its there, you just have to get people to start using it.
Well, a lot of countries have wing loading regulations. It would be interesting to study landing accident "rates" per 1000 jumps and see if those countries have a better record then the US. Doubtful if you could get those stats.
Education, knowledge, and a bit of common sense go a long way...
Don't forget luck.
Nice job Ron. It may help if others sent letters expressing the same concerns. Mine will go off this week.
I would like to see a training requirement also though. Perhaps advanced canopy control training should be required at B license level. Training syllabuses are already in place at various schools. I doubt it would be that difficult to adapt them to a standard.
The hard part will be making it available everywhere.
people are under wings they cant handle because they arent being taught how to fly them
Maybe you didn't mean it to come out that way but it sounds like if I don't know how to fly my canopy I should blame it on the fact that I haven't been taught how. In reality, it is up to you to determine if you need coaching and if you do it is up to you to go find it. It is also up to you to decide if your canopy is too hot to handle. Like I said, maybe I'm mis-reading the sentence.
As for Ron's stats in the initial post. Some of those wingloads vs jump numbers are ridiculous - I don't care how much skill you think you have, at 150 - 400 jumps you are still learning the simple things.
What do I think is the answer: (i) People should stop being idiots with oversized ego's who think they can never get hurt.
As this isn't going to happen then:
(ii) Education backed up by proficiency certification. This would take balls and a lot of work to implement though.
Disclaimer; I am an 'armchair general' so any opinion presented by me will not be backed up by positive action.
no one should really decide what you can or cannot handle but you..
and when the ego driven fools pound in, they should serve as an example to others who wish to remain in the gene pool and be able to jump again tomorrow.
But..there should be an easy route to get the education and training you need if you wish to find out where the edge of the envelope is...not a simple numbers based regulation that only really says "well after this your on your own"
>make sure your plan also includes some measure to ensure its > enforced, say every time a jumper boards an aircraft after lunch? > mandatory canopy size labels on the outsides of gear?
Right! Just like we have mandatory recording computers to enforce the rule against pulling below 2000 feet. Because god knows there's no other way to do that - if we didn't have those computers people would be pulling at 500 feet all the time, and no one would know!
(sarcasm off)
Seriously, most people can see what wing loading you're jumping. After all, parachutes are pretty visible things.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 28, 2003, 9:30 AM
Post #19 of 493
(4760 views)
Shortcut
> . . . would actually make a difference in overall safety
Keeping people on larger canopies for longer will reduce fatalities from low turns. You can take a course and learn how to fly your canopy, or you can learn from experience. The more experience you have the more likely you are to survive. If you learn about how not to turn low by turning low under a 1.1 Spectre you will likely survive the experience - if you learn about it under a 2 to 1 Stiletto you will probably not survive.
> . . simply increasing the jump numbers of the next divot to hook >in under a canopy they still havent learned how to fly.
See above. I've never taken a canopy control class; now I teach people how to land their new semi-elliptical canopies. It takes a lot longer to learn that way though. I had over 1000 jumps before I jumped my first 1.5 to 1 elliptical, over 2000 before I jumped my first 2:1. I went through that progression so that the mistakes I made along the way (and I did make mistakes) did not kill me - although one such mistake put me in a wheelchair for a month.
That being said, I would also be fine with a way to "opt out" of the above restrictions by going through a canopy control course. That way the option is yours.
Seems to me that the issue is serious enough - its killing people after all - for it to be in the USPA's interest to spend the time to produce a training strategy. The highly loaded elliptical is not going to go away, and I know several people with many more then 500 jumps not capable of flying their choice of canopy.
According to the SIM, the dive flows for these category jumps do have canopy control sections. As do the regular AFF categories. Its just that most instructors do not teach this part or have their students do it. So its there, you just have to get people to start using it.
You hit the nail on the head. There most certainly IS a system in place at dropzones which teach the USPA ISP program. We do it here, to the letter, because it trains students how to best avoid injury: practical application of use of all flight surfaces at altitude prior to landing. It's not perfect, but it's MUCH better than what is typically taught at dropzones that teach "old" AFF, SL, IAD, or whatever tandem hybrid that some DZ's use. If your dropzone. does not include at least that level of canopy instruction in it's regular, included-in-the-cost training, then the only people you have to blame is your school manager, DZO, or S&TA. Ron is correct in stating that something needs to be done. I don't think a new BSR is the answer. I think the answer is to stop bullshitting and start teaching decent, ISP-based programs. Stop spitting seven-level AFF graduates out of your schools telling them are free to go out and jump anywhere; they cannot.
Chuck Blue D-12501 Manager, Raeford Parachute Center School S&TA, PRO, AFF/SL/TM/BM Instructor, PST professional
That being said, I would also be fine with a way to "opt out" of the above restrictions by going through a canopy control course. That way the option is yours.
Now this is starting to make sense. If you pass the course then you don't have a restriction. But I also think once you get a D license your at a skill level to make your own choice about wingloading.
Seriously, most people can see what wing loading you're jumping. After all, parachutes are pretty visible things.
so you can look at someone and tell if they are loading at 1.2 vs 1.3 or 1.4?? [joke]do you guess weights at the state fair for extra cash?[/joke]
sure its easy with tiny canopies and/or very large people, but if the ST&A's,DZO's and instructors cant be trusted now to evaluate the people around them and ground those who are obviously 'at risk' because of poor canopy control skills, what make you think they are more likely to tell some one "you cant jump that because the BSR says so..."
and how do you decide? scales outside of the loading area? so if i lose 5 pound this week i'm ok, but a big BBQ dinner the night before and i cant fly??
That being said, I would also be fine with a way to "opt out" of the above restrictions by going through a canopy control course. That way the option is yours.
I agree with this. In the absence of a formal canopy control course (there are places where they aren't commonly offered), some sort of formal observation by an ASO or someone might be possible. But it might just encourage more canopy courses if that were the requirement.
Since our D license is lower than other countries', I'd probably lift the "no restrictions" level to the generally-accepted international D/expert level; 500 jumps. By that time nearly everyone has had an opportunity to make or avoid most of the major mistakes, and have some understanding of how hard it is to learn some of them.
1
