I'm all for some sort of jump number/wingload requiremnets, with the necessary option of being able to test out early. If you think you're hot shit, prove it. Not just once - but on a few jumps, over a few days.
is a good guideline to follow. But we both thought that regulation was not the answer and that education is. Obviously education does not occur every where so improvements need to be made. But things are looking up in terms of canopy education here in CO. The Colorado Canopy Pilots Association was recently formed (a group of experienced canopy pilots who will hold seminars once a month at the different DZs in the state) and while I'm not sure if Hooknswoop will be part of the CCPA, he also holds canopy control seminars every once in a while (which I have attended and was very happy with the instruction).
To date I've got 261 jumps on a wing loaded at about 1.4 on a Sabre2 170 which obviously violates the recommended wing loadings. But I am very current (I've jumped at least once every weekend since January), I stand up 99% of my landings and as long as I don't do anything stupid with my front riser 90 and 180 degree hook turns which I am still learning (I've only found myself in the corner once and I didn't like being there), I should be ok. Plus I'm not planning on downsizing anytime soon (I'm on my Sabre2 until the fall at the very least and that should be another 100+ jumps which should give me over 200 jumps on the same canopy and over 300 jumps on a Sabre2 before I even think about downsizing).
Of course I could always screw up on my next jump and then people will be slamming me like they like slamming some of the other injured jumpers who have made poor judgments in the air.
I think that we should impose some kind of limit on wing-loading with the option to test out. I realize that it would not be very popular at first, as some people would have to re-evaluate their current wing loading. But anyone starting after the rules were enacted would just see it as another part of skydiving. I think that it should be left up to the DZ's. Everyone who jumps a high wingloading at a low number of jumps should have to put their money where their mouth is.
I can just hear the excuses now: "I normally can land in the peas", "I have never fallen before", "I felt pressured by the attention".
I am pretty sure that one person that I knew would be alive today were these rules enacted.
Do you know anyone who would?
I currently jump a XAOS-21 120 at a 2.0 wingloading with approximately 600 jumps.And I would happily take a test to prove my canopy skill, if I fail then I don't need to be jumping a highly loaded canopy.
cant say i like the way you set your poll up it reads to much like exit polls where they are trying to steer you to the answer they want to hear, but i guess thats a problem with polls in general..
so i voted education without regulation.
1.1 on my 190 1.36 on the 150s (i have been and will be jumping mostly)
obviously i'm pretty close to the guidlines proposed, however that is a personal choice and once i feel comfortable with the 150 (and can consistantly perform the tasks BillV recommends) i'll be going to a 135. No matter if thats 50 or 500 jumps from now..
education with no regulation, just because I feel confident in my ability to come to the correct answer for myself, and being the ego centric bastard that I am feel that everyone else is like I am. I tend to steer clear of regulation, regulation is for pussies.
dont get me wrong, I think some things should be regulated. The DZ gave me a student canopy to use during AFF, etc. Obviously they didn't give me the choice to fly that stiletto 120. And there was an AAD and RSL on it, but I think by the time I buy my first rig I should have enough experience to choose a decent 1:1 WL, or something a little less or greater than that. This is analogous to the ruling that all students must have an AAD until they get off student status, where by then they should decide for themselves if they want one. Same thing with canopies. I feel confident in myself that I will choose whats best for me, but like I said, thats pretty egocentric as now that I think about it I can probably think of some people that I don't think would choose the right canopy to fly...who knows, I don't want anymore regulation
I choose not to use an RSL because I've heard enough negative things about them and I hope/believe I will have the witts to properly cutaway and go for silver should the need arise (which it has yet to happen in my short skydiving career). But I do choose to use a cypres because I will be a dead man if I collide with someone in freefall and am unable to deploy my main or my reserve. Of course with an AAD, I really need to be careful with my main deployment altitudes. As far as canopies are concerned, seek out as much information as you can from the experienced people you jump with and get some extra training when available. As a 260+ jump skydiver, I know a lot more about the sport than you do. But I know squat compared to guys like Ron, Billvon, Quade, SkymonkeyOne, Hooknswoop etc, etc, etc and the only way we'll get to their levels of experience is to survive and not make the same mistakes than many others are making. Freedom is a good thing, but it does come at a price.
(This post was edited by CanuckInUSA on Jun 10, 2003, 2:06 PM)
i voted education without regulation. once we let someone regulate our sport, or any facet of it, it will be overrun by regulation. i believe that wingloading is not the problem, education is. any time you clear an aff student in under 20 jumps, etc...that's not good at any wing load. if we regulate wingloading, will we be submitting to RUA next? not that i would care, but it's the "opening the door" to safety nazis i'm concerned about.
500+ jumps, 1 cut-away/reserve ride. flying a HeatWave 170^2 @ 1.55 wing, not a scratch...yet, i know i'm not infallible and i've lived long enough to realize my mortality!
I think that the only thing that would solve this problem, is to get licenced for certain canopies and wingloadings. for example: as a student you can fly square or round canopy (if they are anywhere yet) loaded maximum 0.8 and if you want to get a licence for another canopy, you had to go to canopy control school where they'd teach you how to fly for example any square main loaded up to 1.2. and you had to do certain tasks, which your canopy control instructor would gave you. and you have to do them right otherwise you'd fail and wouldn't get the licence for square canopies loaded 1.2. tasks would be like landing in 30 x 30 feet big marked place, do a flat turn, land crosswind, ... if you already had or made the licence for square canopies 1.2 you could then for example go to squares or elipticals up to 1.4. and you had to do the same tasks and more. something like landing it on front risers or so. i don't know what the tasks, wing loadings, canopies ,classes would be. it's just the idea.
And you wouldn't have to have, i don't know 1000 jumps to get a velocity loaded 2.0. all you had to do is get a licence for xbraced canopies loaded up to 2.0. Off course that licence would be very hard to get. you'd have to be really good at canopy control,... and you couldn't jump from student class directly to xbrace 2.0 class. you'd have to take all classes between, and pass them of course.
But it would prevent that anyone who has 2000 jumps and knows shit about HP canopies, because he was flying manta 280 for all those 2000 jumps, would kill himself. and would also let any very talented, young skydiver who can fly velocity loaded at 2.0 better and safer at 500 jumps than most of people. but just can't because he can't get a canopy. though that kind of talented young skydivers are very rare, but some of them exist.
Just my thought about all this wingloading stuff...
>once we let someone regulate our sport, or any facet of it, it will be >overrun by regulation.
We already have regulations - seven primary ones for experienced jumpers, with about 20 if you count each component of each BSR as one regulation. We haven't been overrun yet. So the question is not - do we avoid regulation? Too late; we have it. The question is - if we have 21 BSR's instead of 20, and it saves the lives of 12 jumpers a year, is that worth it? To the people who are saved, it of course is. To the new jumper who cannot jump his Stiletto 107 until he takes a canopy control course, of course it is not worth it (unless he would otherwise becomes one of the 12.)
>but it's the "opening the door" to safety nazis i'm concerned about.
The door has been open for 30 years now. Nothing really slimy has walked in.
Peer preasure isn't working, Education will only work if it is required, "optional" education like we have now with a few "canopy flight schools" around the country doesn't work.
Education will work if it is backed up by regulations. Jumpers should be evaluated, and tested before being allowed to fly small wings.
I would require this of all new jumpers, I wouldn't allow people to progress beyond a certain wingloading no matter how many jumps they have. E.G. - none of this "1.1 at 100, 1.2 at 200" stuff. Put a hard limit at 1.2 and only allow those with the rating to progress beyond.
I would require this "rating" before granting a "D" licence.
i voted education without regulation. once we let someone regulate our sport, or any facet of it, it will be overrun by regulation
If we regulate ourselves, then we don't have to wait for someone else to do it.
It's not just fatalities. It's serious injuries; someone could probably do a cost-benefit analysis from a medical bills point of view and see a pretty impressive number. Based on the types of injuries I used to see in the early 80's, I would figure that 80-90% of the really serious landing fractures have high performance canopies contributing.
Obviously all won't be eliminated. But let's say we cut them in half. That's a significant change in the injury rate. And since you can get out of it with education (and I'd even like an alternate skills test for people who don't have access to good canopy education, or else traveling canopy certification folks, kind of like ICCs travel now).
All we're talking about doing is increasing the amount of hassle you have to go through before buying a canopy that significantly increases your chance of hurting or killing yourself.
Edited to add: 1.15 wingloading, 1200 jumps
(This post was edited by wmw999 on Jun 10, 2003, 9:02 PM)
Education and more coaches for canopy control. There's RW and FF coaches everywhere, but how many good canopy coaches are there around?
Standards for canopy coaches can be defined and there are plenty of good canopy pilots at the small DZ's that can't support a regular canopy school. This does have to be flexible enough to be fair to the small operations, we don't all jump at turbo heaven DZ's.
Here's another question though, at what point do we lift the regulation ? At 500 jumps ? At a D license ? Is there a point where we finally throw up our hands and say, "by now you oughta know what you can handle" ? Or do we set a hard standard, "if you want to fly a WL of 2.0 you WILL demonstrate proficiency, regardless of whether or not you have 5000 jumps" ? Another question is whether we can get PIA into the act, will the manufacturer's support regulations that on the face of it restrict their potential market ? Anyone here own a really hot little sports car or motorcycle ? These are just some questions to consider.
I'm for some kind of regulation, the fact that over half our fatalities are happening under open canopies should really be an EMBARRASSMENT to us all.
I jump a 230 Spectre with a 1.05 WL, for now anyway.
the fact that over half our fatalities are happening under open canopies should really be an EMBARRASSMENT to us all.
I don't agree... Anyone can fall through the air in freefall. Everyone has to land a canopy. It is the hardest part of skydiving. There is nothing at all embarrasing about it. It should simply be showing that more focus should be put on canopy flight instead of back flips and front flips and barrell rolls all of which I haven't had to do since AFF. But landing a canopy is something I do on every jump.
I myself (for once) dont know how to vote, I do know that something needs to be done, Jump #s dont succesfully show knowledge or talent. But there needs to be something done, if you are going to strap a high wingloaded parachute to your back, you are taking a lot of responsability, to yourself and to the people that share the air and landing area with you. I myself open and try as hard as I can to land last or first, its my opinion when I am in the air that everyone else there is trying to kill me and I want to stay as far away as possibe. To me my parachute, is there to save me, and maybe give me a good swoop, if the air is open. It pisses me off, that so many people big or small canopy dont think about safety and not just in landing, they should think about the air as well. example (someone that is afraid as hell of someone near them under canopy, but still lands in a large group of people in a short time just to land near the pea's). When a load of 23 people all land in 20 feet of each other in less than a minute, with canopies that range from .08 to 2.7 wingloading something is wrong.
Education: Yes there needs to be education, if not more people will die, yes I said WILL! As hard as gear manufacturers work at making skydiving safer, jumpers work harder to make it more dangerous. Dropzone owners, STA's, everyone needs to step up to the plate and if you see someone make a stupid mistake or judgement, tell them. Gear dealers need to stop selling people canopies they arent ready for. I have myself seen a LOT of recent people trying out Velocities, Xaos's, and Fx's that have no reason being under that canopy whatsoever, I have helped wash blood off one myself that the guy was told he is asking for it, and thank god he is alive today.
BSR: Maybe we have to do this, as long as we let people make up their minds about what they dont understand, then we are allowing them to endanger us as well as themselves. Im still not decided on this and since I have a lot of experience, I dont want to limit people's growth, and I also know where I came from (Broken Femur, hooked it in small canopy lucky to be alive, 400 jumps) but from where I am at now, I think that everyone will be safer if we limit who can fly what. It is hard to decide who, and what, and who says who and what, but in the direction we are heading we need to do something.
Final thought: Everyone and anyone, that jumps a small canopy (any canopy for that thought) has a responsability to themselves and the people in the air with them, Just being capable of landing a canopy says squat about you, you need to be mature enough in your progression, to know what will keep you alive and the people around you alive also. That is what defines what canopy your ready for. It isnt what you can land, a monkey can land a ve90, but a monkey can kill anyone on the way down. Most of all, be safe and think about things, just cause you can land a canopy doesnt mean you can fly that canopy, if everyone doesn't start making good decisions the ability to make a decision will be taken from us. It is everyone's responsability, to make sure we are ALL smart and safe. Give opinions, ask opinions.
Anyone that has been in the sport a long time, should have seen the one! We see them all the time, we all go yeah he's the next, and usually he is. This shouldnt happen. We need to stop looking and saying yeah he will hook it in soon, and instead do something from stopping that from happening. If it was someone that pulled low instead of hooked low he would be grounded, why isnt someone grounded/reprimanded for hooking low.
Anyway I have said enough, think about it and make your own mind up. Be carefull and be smart. Its not your own life you are responsable for its everyone that you jump with's.
Edited to add 2000+ jumps 2.3 wingloading today.
(This post was edited by Rdutch on Jun 10, 2003, 7:06 PM)