billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 9, 2003, 7:47 PM
Post #1 of 202
(3075 views)
Shortcut
Canopy loading restrictions take 3
Can't Post
Take 3 on the canopy-loading issue.
Take them out of the BSR's and put them in the license restriction part of the SIM. These are essentially recommendations; the S+TA decides which have to be enforced. The limits are:
A license - 1 psf max B license - 1.1 psf max C license - 1.3 psf max D license - no limit
Also institute a canopy control syllabus, initally to be taught by any USPA instructional rating holder (from coach to I/E) then eventually taught by a canopy coach, once the canopy coach certification system is in place. Anyone who takes (and passes) the course is exempt from the requirements.
Most of the complaints about a BSR has been concerning the egregious loss of personal freedoms by any BSR. So we take it out of the BSR's, make it a recommendation, and put it on the shoulders of the S+TA's and DZO's. They now have something in the SIM to back them up if they do have to go head to head with a jumper who is absoultely, positively sure they can jump a Stiletto 97 at 39 jumps. That way the SIM serves to support the DZO's/S+TA's who are trying to do the right thing, but leaves it up to them (and the individual jumper.)
This, of course, will do the least of all the proposals to prevent canopy fatalities, since it's optional. But as far as I can tell removes the primary objection which is that it restricts people's freedoms. It also gets education to people who need it, which is the really critical part of the the proposal.
quade (D 22635)
Moderator
Jul 9, 2003, 8:10 PM
Post #2 of 202
(3052 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Canopy loading restrictions take 3
[In reply to]
Jul 9, 2003, 8:28 PM
Post #3 of 202
(3038 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Canopy loading restrictions take 3
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In the SIM recommendations is better than in the BSRs (or rather, less bad)... but where do those numbers come from to begin with?
Why not A - 0.5 B - 0.6 C - 0.7 D - anything
Do we wait for B-licensees to die jumping under 1.1 before we make a proposal with crazy numbers like these?
If I get my C-license this summer the SIM recommends against a Spectre-110 (~1.4 for me) but doesn't recommend against a VX-119 (~ 1.3 for me)? How about a Cobalt? It says right there in the 2003 SIM Section 5
"Design, materials, and construction techniques can cause two equally wing-loaded canopies to perform very differently."
I know this is old ground...I think your heart is in the right place, but I think playing with wingloading just doesn't get us there...
Jul 9, 2003, 8:54 PM
Post #5 of 202
(3026 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Canopy loading restrictions take 3
[In reply to]
Can't Post
i like this alot better. I'm not quite positive on the numbers, but i think the idea is just to have general guidlines.
I think the real changes and effects would be felt with new jumpers, an expanded canopy control class at the intial stages (post basic freefall skills, but before licensing) will make the most difference, and here is the level that we can instill the idea that the people flying the 'cool wings' learned the skills they need to survive those wings before they went out and flew them.
granted without it being a 'requirement' you will still have egotists thinking they are above it all, but that is an attitude change that most likely formed over years and isnt going to be greatly affected by any level of education no matter how good the materials or teacher..
you can lead the horse....
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 9, 2003, 9:09 PM
Post #6 of 202
(3015 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nathaniel] Canopy loading restrictions take 3
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>In the SIM recommendations is better than in the BSRs (or rather, >less bad)... but where do those numbers come from to begin with?
Brian Germain's canopy progression.
>Why not >A - 0.5 >B - 0.6 >C - 0.7 >D - anything
Because those are unreasonable.
"Design, materials, and construction techniques can cause two equally wing-loaded canopies to perform very differently."
And every skydiver is different. That does not change the fact that smaller canopies kill people a lot more often than larger canopies do when they make the same mistake. You can come up with exceptions to every single BSR around (what, you mean I can legally pull at 2000 feet with a VX-40 but my friend with one less jump than me has to pull at 2500 feet with his Manta? The whole pull altitude thing is invalid!) No rule, guideline or suggestion is perfect or applies to everyone equally. That does not mean all rules, guidelines or suggestions are invalid.
Jul 9, 2003, 10:53 PM
Post #7 of 202
(2983 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Canopy loading restrictions take 3
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
>Why not >A - 0.5 >B - 0.6 >C - 0.7 >D - anything
Because those are unreasonable.
Your 1.3 max wing loading for a C License holder is also unreasonably low.
In reply to:
That does not change the fact that smaller canopies kill people
That is your definition of a fact?
Does the fabric envelop them and suffocate them to death? Make some sense with your statements please. A more realitsic sentence would read: "People who make poor decisions while flying canopies of any size can easily kill themselves." This is a more factual statement.
Jul 10, 2003, 5:09 AM
Post #9 of 202
(2928 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Canopy loading restrictions take 3
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Just out of curiosity, with these restrictions, would you support grandfathering people that already own equipment loaded above the recommended figure?
For instance, I have a Hornet 210 and I weigh 210 lbs with nothing on so I'm about 235 lbs going out the door.
I have an A License
Thats 1.1 and frankly I cant afford to run out and buy another canopy. Dont want to either even if I could. I worked hard to pay for what I have and I dont want to shelve it because someone came along after the fact and made a rule that says I cant jump this wing loading. I dont swoop or hook and I have no interest in starting that kind of stuff at this point.
Please understand that I support your goal and regulating how fast people progress to faster canopies is a good idea. I'm all for it. I think some grandfathering initially to help smooth over the transition might not be a bad idea though. Equipment is expensive and a strict enforcement of this would suddenly make a lot of equipment unjumpable for the people that bought it.
If you already covered this area previously, please excuse me. There have been almost too many posts on this issue to read all of them or even remember if I did
Jul 10, 2003, 9:53 AM
Post #16 of 202
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Canopy loading restrictions take 3
[In reply to]
Can't Post
You know that sounds really good. I have my B and have the qualifications (except for one night jump) for my D, and I'm usually at 1.25. So what about the people, like me, that are already over the limit ? Do you or the USPA expect me to upsize even though I can competently land my canopy ??
Jul 10, 2003, 10:05 AM
Post #17 of 202
(2797 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Canopy loading restrictions take 3
[In reply to]
Can't Post
To be quite honest with you - I think the ability for someone to think plays a much larger role in survival than experience does. Sort of
In my many years trudging around in the backcountry of the Rockies, I've met many a backcountry explorer that has decades of bc experience yet they still overlook some of the most basic points. I'd much rather be out there with someone that I know THINKS before they act regardless of the situaton and I know plenty of folks with a quarter of the experience of other people that I would gladly rope in with.
When talking about canopy loading, I think that downsizing is looked at as "cool" and "one way to get cooler" and "the way to get longer swoops" - i.e. there is a bit of badassness to it. I still contend that I had 95 jumps when I got my Sabre 135 and have only hurt myself once on it because I didn't think before I acted. It had nothing to do with experience as I had no problems flying the canopy in any condition. I simply didn't think about the maneuver I was trying to execute before executing. Its the same way a gymnast can bust out a trick in competition without ever throwing it in practice - visualization is key.
Like you said - "I know a guy with 1000 jumps that has 3 cypress fires." I don't think I'd want to be around that "experienced" jumper in the sky. But, I know plenty of 3-500 jump wonders that can tear the sky a new asshole with their skills AND they are alti aware ALL the time.
Jul 10, 2003, 10:06 AM
Post #18 of 202
(2796 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Canopy loading restrictions take 3
[In reply to]
Can't Post
A: 1.3 B: 1.7 C: 2.0 D: unlimited
Then let Darwin's dangerous idea take over
I don't know where you guys jump but where I do instructors and experienced jumpers look at your landings and the path you take to do so. They have no problem grounding you on a particular wingload if they feel it's unsafe. Similarly if they see solid canopy control skills they also have no problem letting you downsize. Rules, regulations, bullshit left and right...I don't know. I think all we need is a bit of common sense and enforce that.
Jul 10, 2003, 10:21 AM
Post #19 of 202
(2783 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Canopy loading restrictions take 3
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I am way more down with recommendations than I am with trying to push through a wingloading bsr.
What the hell are S&TA's for anyways, if not to step back from all the rules and determine that what someone is doing is unsafe, no matter what their wingloading is? Even if you are loaded at 1:1 and have a zillion jumps, if you're a jackass and can't land yourself safely a good S&TA will ground you. Period.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 10, 2003, 10:25 AM
Post #20 of 202
(2779 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nicknitro71] Canopy loading restrictions take 3
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>I don't know where you guys jump but where I do instructors and >experienced jumpers look at your landings and the path you take to > do so. They have no problem grounding you on a particular >wingload if they feel it's unsafe.
Right, but not everyone has an expert canopy pilot who is also an S+TA (instructors can't ground people.) Adding recommendations to the BSR's would give the S+TA a good guide if he is not a very experienced canopy pilot; not all are.
Jul 10, 2003, 11:22 AM
Post #21 of 202
(2752 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Canopy loading restrictions take 3
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I really like it being tied to license, it gives people a relatively easy way to get around the restrictions.
That said, I don't think restrictions in themselves solve the problem. People are cratering with all levels of experience, the problem is not limited to those with with lower jump numbers. Holding people back until they get "experience" is not enough, we need to hold people back until they have both experience AND knowledge.
Demonstration of the skills required to keep yourself alive at high wingloadings need to be done before progressing to those higher wingloadings.
Build these skill requirements into the licencing requirements, and I'll be with you 100%.
Jul 10, 2003, 11:59 AM
Post #23 of 202
(2733 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nicknitro71] Canopy loading restrictions take 3
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
A: 1.3 B: 1.7 C: 2.0 D: unlimited
1.7 at 50 jumps? 2.0 at 300 ?????
This is the exactly the wrong way to go.
I jump a 1.7 now with almost 3,000 jumps
In reply to:
I don't know where you guys jump but where I do instructors and experienced jumpers look at your landings and the path you take to do so. They have no problem grounding you on a particular wingload if they feel it's unsafe. Similarly if they see solid canopy control skills they also have no problem letting you downsize. Rules, regulations, bullshit left and right...I don't know. I think all we need is a bit of common sense and enforce that.
Thats just YOUR DZ...there are several in the US that do not do that.
Under most of the proposals..If you are good enough you can get to jump what you want.
Under mine you have to prove you are ready to downsize by passing a test under the canopy you have now.
(This post was edited by Ron on Jul 10, 2003, 12:02 PM)
1
