Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Canopy loading restrictions take 3

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All

Ron

Jul 16, 2003, 8:01 AM
Post #151 of 202 (782 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There's not
a lot to indicate that experience is a cure in this case. The cure is education.

I agree that the cure is education, but what to do when people don't listen, and the S&TA's don't do anything?

Quote:
James should not have been jumping the 120. His landings in the previous 3-4 weeks had been not
great in normal conditions, and a couple of times he biffed in so hard in no-wind conditions that he
stopped jumping for the weekend. We'd (me, our other teammates, instructors, his friends) all been
fussing at him about jumping it. Kathie and I were talking to him about it just last weekend about it, we
were so worried about him. I had stopped watching him land even when we were on the same jumps
because it upset me so much.

Quote:
I want to make it clear that this was
not a one-time, accidental hook, there was a pattern of this behavior leading up to the incident.

Then why didn't anyone stop this guy? They knew he was in danger. But the system failed didn't it?

Education is available, but without making it required...It will not be taken by many.

Now this guy had 800 jumps, so some of the proposed regulations would not have effected him directly.

But it shows that just peer preasure, and the S&TA's watching the jumpers is not going to work either.

Ron


kallend  (D 23151)

Jul 16, 2003, 8:23 AM
Post #152 of 202 (776 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
There's not
a lot to indicate that experience is a cure in this case. The cure is education.

I agree that the cure is education, but what to do when people don't listen, and the S&TA's don't do anything?

Quote:
James should not have been jumping the 120. His landings in the previous 3-4 weeks had been not
great in normal conditions, and a couple of times he biffed in so hard in no-wind conditions that he
stopped jumping for the weekend. We'd (me, our other teammates, instructors, his friends) all been
fussing at him about jumping it. Kathie and I were talking to him about it just last weekend about it, we
were so worried about him. I had stopped watching him land even when we were on the same jumps
because it upset me so much.

Quote:
I want to make it clear that this was
not a one-time, accidental hook, there was a pattern of this behavior leading up to the incident.

Then why didn't anyone stop this guy? They knew he was in danger. But the system failed didn't it?

Education is available, but without making it required...It will not be taken by many.

Now this guy had 800 jumps, so some of the proposed regulations would not have effected him directly.

But it shows that just peer preasure, and the S&TA's watching the jumpers is not going to work either.

Ron


I did not write most of that stuff! You mixed up several posts.


Ron

Jul 16, 2003, 8:32 AM
Post #153 of 202 (774 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

No, It is from another article to show that the current plan of letting S&TA's and peer groups, and canopy education without making it manditiory is not working...

I am sorry you thought I was quoting you.

Ron


Zenister  (A 42)

Jul 16, 2003, 8:51 AM
Post #154 of 202 (767 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

but what it actually shows is that some ST&As (and more importantly the jumpers friends who claim to care about him) didnt do thier jobs and seriously talk to him about it, explain exactly the risks he was taking and that they were worried about him flying that.

Mandatory regulations wont change that. Peer pressure does work if the peers (and ST&As) do their job, and take the time to talk to jumpers they are concerned about. If its still ignored after all that, then it falls in the "oh well, your an adult and are well aware of the risks' catagory..


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 16, 2003, 8:55 AM
Post #155 of 202 (765 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

>but what it actually shows is that some ST&As (and more importantly
> the jumpers friends who claim to care about him) didnt do thier jobs
> and seriously talk to him about it, explain exactly the risks he was
> taking and that they were worried about him flying that.

Yep. A recommendation in the SIM would give the S+TA a guideline to use when he tells the guy to get training. Not every S+TA is a swoop god.

>Peer pressure does work if the peers (and ST&As) do their job,
>and take the time to talk to jumpers they are concerned about.

I've seen that system fail a dozen times when everyone involved talked to the jumper until they were blue in the face. The jumper simply did not have the experience to understand what they were saying yet.

>If its still ignored after all that, then it falls in the "oh well, your an
>adult and are well aware of the risks' catagory..

All skydivers are adults. We still don't let people jump solo from 13,000 on their first jump - even if we explain the risks to them ad nauseum. We do that because they do not yet understand the risks that most of us do.


Zenister  (A 42)

Jul 16, 2003, 9:07 AM
Post #156 of 202 (762 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
All skydivers are adults. We still don't let people jump solo from 13,000 on their first jump - even if we explain the risks to them ad nauseum. We do that because they do not yet understand the risks that most of us do.


can we stop with the comparison of licensed trained jumpers with 1st time wuffos? Once you've been signed off your A your a licensed skydiver, currently that means you are now responsible for yourself and what you fly (actually you were in your FJC too you just had some extra help incase you couldnt save yourself)

we've been getting closer to the development of better canopy control training at early levels, but even then, once someone has been thru the course (FJC or CC) it is up to the peers to 'regulate' the risks the people they care about take. If those concerns are still ignored, it is not anyone elses responsiblity accept the jumper (unless they are flying in a manner that puts others at risk which should be addressed the min they walk off the landing area by the ST&A.


Ron

Jul 16, 2003, 9:12 AM
Post #157 of 202 (758 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
can we stop with the comparison of licensed trained jumpers with 1st time wuffos? Once you've been signed off
your A your a licensed skydiver, currently that means you are now responsible for yourself and what you fly

Then why do we have BSR's that effect licensed jumpers?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 16, 2003, 9:13 AM
Post #158 of 202 (757 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

>can we stop with the comparison of licensed trained jumpers with 1st time wuffos?

No, we can't - and USPA hasn't stopped either. With the ISP and the new license definitions we have been changing what "licensed trained jumpers" means. There are things that people with 50 jumps are not allowed to do but people with 500 jumps are. Does that mean that the people with 50 jumps are not adults but the people with 500 jumps are? Nope - it just means they have enough experience to more accurately gauge the risk themselves.


Zenister  (A 42)

Jul 16, 2003, 9:16 AM
Post #159 of 202 (756 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

A BSR is going to pull for you? no you are, you are responsible for yourself. BSR's define basic safety practices

come on, now your being disingenuous.


Zenister  (A 42)

Jul 16, 2003, 9:25 AM
Post #160 of 202 (752 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

so your implying that no matter how many courses you take your still not responsible for your own choices and actions? please.


FJC teaches you to save your life. More canopy control should certainly be included in that and pushed as good things later on, but are you going to say now, (once someone has completed a CC) that they cant make decisions about what to fly on their own? even when others think it may be to much for them? that exactly the "brothers keeper" problem, trying to protect someone from themselves.

We have to define at what point is a jumper qualified to make decisions about their own safety

jump #'s?
completion of Canopy Control courses?
years in sport irregardless of jump #'s?
D license?

at some point you will have to rely on peer pressure and ST&As to do their job, and learn to shake your head when it still fails (because it will, and anyone who thinks all the safety measures, training & regulations in the world will actually prevent any particular accident needs a reality check.)


(This post was edited by Zenister on Jul 16, 2003, 9:46 AM)


Ron

Jul 16, 2003, 9:40 AM
Post #161 of 202 (747 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
A BSR is going to pull for you? no you are, you are responsible for yourself. BSR's define basic safety practices

come on, now your being disingenuous.

BSR's govern ALL aspects of skydiving, not just students.
I have to be current to do a Demo, I had to get a PRO to do some harder Demos.

If we used your logic..There would be no BSR's after you get an "A".

So your argument of

Quote:
can we stop with the comparison of licensed trained jumpers with 1st time wuffos? Once you've been
signed off your A your a licensed skydiver, currently that means you are now responsible for yourself
and what you fly

But then why have BSR's for pull altitudes for a guy with a license? Is a valid reply.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 16, 2003, 10:16 AM
Post #162 of 202 (737 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

>so your implying that no matter how many courses you take your
>still not responsible for your own choices and actions?

No, I neither said nor implied that. You are ALWAYS responsible for your own actions. That doesn't mean a Level-6 student can decide to jump a Safire 189, even if he decides the risk is worth it.

>FJC teaches you to save your life. More canopy control should
> certainly be included in that and pushed as good things later on, but
> are you going to say now, (once someone has completed a CC) that
> they cant make decisions about what to fly on their own?

What's a CC? If it's a canopy control course, then my proposal says that once you take a canopy control course you can jump whatever you want.

>We have to define at what point is a jumper qualified to make
> decisions about their own safety.

You can't. It changes with the situation. When can a jumper decide to jump on his own? After AFF. When can he do a demo? After he has a D license. When can he modify his own rig and jump it? When he gets a master rigger's rating. When can he decide, on his own, to jump near a lake without water gear? When he's an S+TA. Trying to claim that these are all pretty much the same, and so should all be allowed when they have 100 jumps or whatever, is silly.


parachutist  (D 25468)

Jul 16, 2003, 10:17 AM
Post #163 of 202 (736 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The problem with your chart is it still lets 300 jump wonders have 1.5 with out any training.

First off, it says "Bare Minimun exp. suggested" and it's just a rough draft. =]
Secondly, if training is mandatory then it will be a moot point because they will have the education.

In reply to:
Except they would have 300 jumps more experience.
And might make a better judgment. I knew more at 500 jumps than I did at 200. I bet most people agree that they did as well.

Most people did not attend detailed canopy control classes. Education is what's missing. At jump #200 I attended a week-long canopy control seminar and it worked wonders on my understanding of canopy flight. Most jumpers do not bother to get such training... I believe that making it an integral part of their training will improve things greatly, both for the 300+ and the 1,000+ jumpers.

Chris


Zenister  (A 42)

Jul 16, 2003, 10:30 AM
Post #164 of 202 (728 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You can't. It changes with the situation. When can a jumper decide to jump on his own? After AFF. When can he do a demo? After he has a D license. When can he modify his own rig and jump it? When he gets a master rigger's rating. When can he decide, on his own, to jump near a lake without water gear? When he's an S+TA. Trying to claim that these are all pretty much the same, and so should all be allowed when they have 100 jumps or whatever, is silly.

sorry should have specified yes i meant Canopy Control class by CC (should have been CCC i guess)

those are not all the same, your distorting my arguement by implying they are..

how about this then.

At what point is a jumper qualified to decide what canopy they can put on their back as part of thier regular skydive experience?

when can you say (for example) " a Vengeance? sure i havent flown one of those i'll try it." without having to ask permission from the 'adults'? and or tell the 'adults' who are concerned about you flying it "i have heard your concerns however its my life and i'll risk it as i chose, thanks for caring."?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 16, 2003, 10:55 AM
Post #165 of 202 (720 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

>At what point is a jumper qualified to decide what canopy they can
>put on their back as part of thier regular skydive experience?

Under my proposal, they always are. The recommendations at the beginning of this thread would be in the SIM; it's not a BSR, so it's a recommendation only. The S+TA can choose to stop them if they feel that the jumper is unsafe. That's his job now; nothing new other than he has guidelines in the SIM he can use to decide what makes sense for what experience level.


CanuckInUSA  (D 26396)

Jul 16, 2003, 10:58 AM
Post #166 of 202 (720 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

I recognize the problem and am all in favor of canopy wing loading recommendations and for sure in favor (if it's possible) of trying to setup some sort of universal canopy control course curriculum. But one has to wonder what the true root cause of the problem is. Is the problem really wing loading or is the problem more of an attitude problem. When we fly our canopies, do we really know what we are doing? When someone hooks in (or comes close to doing it), many people immediately respond by saying that their wing loading was too much for the canopy pilot to handle (which may or may not be the case). But maybe the problem wasn't 100% wing loading and maybe the canopy pilot was just executing a maneuver that they weren't ready for on that canopy. Here's two personal examples that may help explain where I'm coming from:

1) Last weekend I swooped my home DZs high performance landing area (4 attempts) for the first time. On my 2nd attempt, I over flew the course (my approach wasn't right and errored on the side of safety) but my other three attempts I entered the gates at the starting point and didn't have the momentum to swoop the entire 220+ foot course. But it was on my last attempt where I carried the most speed where I almost messed up and I was forced to PLF after I popped up during my swoop (too much lift caused by the added speed and my inexperience on the course). Now the biggest lesson I'm taking away from that last landing was that I need to dial back the intensity meter for my approaches in this course. As long as I don't hurt myself, I think I will be a better canopy pilot running this course, but my attitude towards running it could have gotten myself hurt, not my wing loading.

2) In the not too distant future (likely around September) I will start flying a new canopy (with yes a higher wing loading). Now will I be able to start right off the bat jumping this canopy in the high performance landing area? Hell no. I'm going to have to start all over from scratch learning the ins and outs doing straight in full flight approaches. Then straight in double front approaches. Followed by subtle 90 degree front riser carves in the main landing area before I think about ever landing in the high performance landing area. So if I do all of this and not rush myself, I stand a chance of surviving with my new canopy. But if I don't approach this new canopy responsibly, I stand a chance of messing myself up and whats to blame? My wing loading or my attitude? I think it's my attitude.

The more experience canopy pilots need to talk to the lesser experienced people about their attitudes towards the sport and not just what sort of equipment they choose to fly.


(This post was edited by CanuckInUSA on Jul 16, 2003, 11:50 AM)


Ron

Jul 16, 2003, 11:24 AM
Post #167 of 202 (713 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CanuckInUSA] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
When
someone hooks in (or comes close to doing it), many people immediately respond by saying that their wing
loading was too much for the canopy pilot to handle

I think it is clear that if someone hooks in they were over their heads.

In reply to:
But maybe the
problem wasn't 100% wing loading and maybe the canopy pilot was just executing a maneuver that they
weren't ready for on that canopy.

I agree the issue is people doing things they are not experienced enough to do...However the problem is increased as the wingload gets higher. A bad landing under a 1.2 is a femur at a 1.5,and could be fatal at a 2.0.

Do you not agree that a high wingload increases the risk?

In reply to:
The more experience canopy pilots need to talk to the lesser experienced people about their attitudes
towards the sport and not just what sort of equipment they choose to fly.

You think we get shit for saying that that canopy is too small for you....Wait until we tell you that your attitude under canopy sucks. (not you, I think you have a pretty good approach, but we still have had our issues with this right?)

The big egos under small canopies are not going to listen to us for one second if we say anything about them not having the right attitude. They will ignore us.

Hell they don't listen now.

Quote:
From incidents:
James should not have been jumping the 120. His landings in the previous 3-4 weeks had been not great in normal conditions, and a couple of times he biffed in so hard in no-wind conditions that he stopped jumping for the weekend. We'd (me, our other teammates, instructors, his friends) all been fussing at him about jumping it. Kathie and I were talking to him about it just last weekend about it, we were so worried about him. I had stopped watching him land even when we were on the same jumps because it upset me so much.
There was a swoop competition (for the experienced local jumpers) going on sat. morning. Friday night he apparently was talking with several people and was saying he wanted to participate, and all of them made him promise not to do it. He'd never even gone through the swoop course on his other canopy. Yet he did it anyway on this canopy, which he did not have the skill to land normally to start with.

This guy was known to be in the danger zone. People asked him to be careful, he ignored them.

They made him promise not to do the swoop course...He ignored them.

I knew this guy...He was a good guy....But he had an ego. I had talked to him years ago when I was in Raeford about canopies....He ignored me.

Most of the people fighting this WL stuff say "Its my businesses what I jump leave me alone. It my right to do as I please...Back off me!"

The reason I went for regulation is because most people don't listen to advice.


(This post was edited by Ron on Jul 16, 2003, 11:29 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Jul 16, 2003, 11:25 AM
Post #168 of 202 (711 views)
Shortcut
Re: [parachutist] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Education is what's missing.

Chris

EXACTLY!


kallend  (D 23151)

Jul 16, 2003, 11:27 AM
Post #169 of 202 (709 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>At what point is a jumper qualified to decide what canopy they can
>put on their back as part of thier regular skydive experience?

Under my proposal, they always are. The recommendations at the beginning of this thread would be in the SIM; it's not a BSR, so it's a recommendation only. The S+TA can choose to stop them if they feel that the jumper is unsafe. That's his job now; nothing new other than he has guidelines in the SIM he can use to decide what makes sense for what experience level.

So what happened at the Safety and Training Committee meeting last weekend where this stuff was on the agenda?


Ron

Jul 16, 2003, 11:28 AM
Post #170 of 202 (709 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

And as I have asked before John...

How do we make them learn?

And if they refuse, do we let them do as the wish anyway?


Ron

Jul 16, 2003, 11:33 AM
Post #171 of 202 (706 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So what happened at the Safety and Training Committee meeting last weekend where this stuff was on
the agenda?

Quote:
From Richard Schachner The RD I asked to take my proposal up to the USPA:

Well, the safety and training committee didn't go for your recommendation for wingloading. Appointed someone to look into it some more. They have a draft of a page that is going into the new SIMS.

I knew it had a snowballs chance, but at least they are now looking into it.

I have very little faith in the USPA fixing anything.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jul 16, 2003, 12:31 PM
Post #172 of 202 (695 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
And as I have asked before John...

How do we make them learn?

And if they refuse, do we let them do as the wish anyway?

I have raised four sons to adulthood. That's enough nannying for a lifetime. If an adult refuses to take good advice, it's on his or her head IMO, it's not my job to force the issue.


Zenister  (A 42)

Jul 16, 2003, 12:38 PM
Post #173 of 202 (687 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The reason I went for regulation is because most people don't listen to advice.

i think most people do listen, and dont want regulation forced on us for the few who do not and then fuck up spectacularly.


Ron

Jul 16, 2003, 12:38 PM
Post #174 of 202 (687 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I have raised four sons to adulthood. That's enough nannying for a lifetime. If an adult refuses to take
good advice, it's on his or her head IMO, it's not my job to force the issue.

Ok thats you...But thats not everyone.

Some of us care about the sport, the future of it and the people in it.

But if you don't care, why argue the point?

Ron


Ron

Jul 16, 2003, 12:43 PM
Post #175 of 202 (681 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Zenister] Canopy loading restrictions take 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
i think most people do listen, and dont want regulation forced on us for the few who do not and then fuck up
spectacularly.

As you like to say: Have any hard numbers to prove that? Or is it just a guess?


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)