Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
WL BSR, take 4?

 

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

Hooknswoop  (D License)

Nov 4, 2003, 1:43 PM
Post #1 of 110 (2847 views)
Shortcut
WL BSR, take 4? Can't Post

The USPA is not going to fund a study to determine if a Wing Loading Basic Safety Requirement (WL BSR) is necessary and to what extent to restrict WL's if they determine it is. DZO's are not going to submit incident reports if thy feel they could be jeopardizing their business, regardless if their DZ is a Group Member DZ and if USPA requires them to be submitted. This eliminates the possibility of a track-able incident database from being created. If you disagree with how BSR's are made, that is the topic of another thread. At least 3 DZ's have implemented WL restriction, none are the same, but all are more restrictive than what is being proposed. The current system of Instructors and S&TA's advising skydivers about canopy choices is broken. A conflict of interest exists with the DZO prohibiting someone from jumping a canopy they feel is too aggressive for the skydiver. They lose income in the form of lift tickets and future gear sales because the skydiver goes to another DZ. Not all S&TA's grounding decisions are backed by the DZO. The system lacks uniformity between DZ's across the country.

I fly a highly loaded canopy and do not want to prevent anyone else from doing the same. I want to ensure they have the experience and training to handle the canopy. Minimum pull altitudes ensure that skydivers begin their deployment high enough to deal with a malfunction based on jump numbers. There are no waivers or exceptions to the minimum pull altitude BSR's, nor any option to lower a skydiver's mpa based on a practical exam/demonstrated performance. The proposed WL BSR allows for not only a waiver to be granted prior to the specified number of jumps based on a practical exam/demonstrated proficiency, but also allows waivers to be granted upon completion of a cc training course, yet to be designed.

There is nothing to stop a DZ from exceeding the proposed limitations, but they are less likely to institute stricter requirements if a nationally recognized WL BSR is in place, accepted, enforced, and followed. In short, the proposed WL BSR may prevent a more restrictive over all and different from DZ to DZ WL restriction policies. DZO's and experienced skydivers have recognized the need for these limits and more canopy training. One way or another, limits will be put in place. Skydiving is at a crossroad. We can either develop and implement a WL BSR and required cc training that allows for exceptions that is acceptable and not overly restrictive, or deal with the no-exceptions and very restrictive WL policies more and more DZ's are implementing. If we don't to it, it will be done for us and I fear it will be far worse than if we do it.

We hear about skydivers either in over their heads with their canopy, or wanting to downsize even though they can barely handle their current canopy. There is far too little resources newer skydivers can utilize to help them make wise canopy choices. The pressure to fit in and be 'cool' is stronger for newer skydivers. They watch the hot canopy pilots land, they hear how people react to their landings and desperately want to be admired, just like the swoopers are. Newer skydivers simply don't know hat they don't know. They don't know that small, high performance canopies require a lot of skill and experience to fly. They come with an added responsibility of collision avoidance because they come down faster than larger canopies, those pilots cannot see them coming nor avoid them if they could. Malfunctions are more violent and descend much faster with high performance canopies. Newer skydivers don't realize how dangerous high performance landings can be because very good pilots make them to look easy.

Canopy design and accepted canopy progression have both changed in recent years. The next generation of canopies has arrived with incredible performance. Newer skydivers are moving to higher performance canopies sooner. 10 years ago, someone with less than 500 jumps on a Stiletto 120 was unheard of. Now it isn't uncommon. The performance of these canopies has not changed. Unfortunately, canopy control has not kept pace with these changes and the result is more incidents. Unless something changes, the problem will get worse.

The lack of a WL BSR is allowing an increasing rate of injuries and fatalities. We cannot allow this to continue unchecked. I do believe in pushing limits and advancing the level of the sport. I also believe in calculated risks and being prepared. Taking risks impulsively and carelessly without analyzing and minimizing the risks beforehand will eventually result in an incident.

Skydivers are subject to very little restrictions by the USPA, which aren't even mandatory. Skydivers are subjected to even less requirements by the FAA. They resist any intrusions into their perceived freedoms, even if they make sense. The fear that a WL BSR will open the door for more and more, tighter restrictions is unfounded. Skydivers do not need the freedom to make dumb canopy choices. The freedom to fly a canopy that stands a very good chance of injuring or killing the pilot due to inexperience or lack of skill is not a freedom, it is simply ignorant. Newer skydivers believe they can handle a small high performance canopy, but the truth is they are not equipped to make an educated decision about what they can handle and what they can't. How could they? They haven't mastered any canopy yet and have never flown a high performance canopy. A skydiver with 50 jumps convinced that they can handle an elliptical canopy at an aggressive wing loading is like me tying to convince Mario Andretti that I can handle a formula 1 race car at speed, having never driven a race car. Why would I not believe Mr. Andretti when he told me I should start with something not quite so high performance? What would lead me to believe that with my zero experience, I could possibly make a better decision about what type of race car I could handle than someone with a lifetime's worth of experience? Having never driven anything even close to a Formula 1race car, on what basis could I decide that I could handle one? None. I would be a fool not to listen to him and take his advice. Fortunately, drivers must prove themselves worthy prior to racing a Formula 1 race car. I'm sure everyone agrees this is a good idea.

What if a WL BSR, with options for exceeding the restrictions, does cause some skydivers to be temporarily 'held back' on a lower performance canopy than they are capable of safely flying? Is it such a big deal? Must a skydiver downsize as soon as they are capable to? If a few skydivers being temporarily held back even though they could safely downsize is the price that must be paid to reduce the increasing number of cc incidents, then it is a small price to pay. Allowing anyone to jump anything in the name of freedom and the desire to push one's limits means that more and more skydivers will be injured or killed under good canopies, then that freedom isn't worth the cost.

The proposal:

I propose USPA develop a series of canopy skills requirements for the B, C, and D licenses that build upon the initial "A" license canopy skills. These requirements would need to be flexible enough to allow for aggressive canopy pilots and conservative canopy pilots alike. They would include canopy control classroom training, practical exercises, a written and practical test. I also propose USPA implement (grand-fathering in current license holders), canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the A through D license. As each license is obtained, the skydiver may jump a canopy with a higher wing loading if they choose to. The WL restrictions could be waiver-able to a certain, defined degree to allow a skydiver that wishes to advance more quickly, puts in the effort, and demonstrates the ability. A Canopy Instructor, AFFI, AFFI/E, or S &TA would be able to waiver a skydiver to a higher wing loading. A skydiver could also earn a canopy restricted "B" through "D" license if they choose not to demonstrate the proficiency required for the next license, in the same manner and similar to those restricted 'D' licenses for those unwilling or unable to perform night jumps. If a skydiver completes the canopy control training requirements for the next license prior to having the jump numbers required and demonstrates the ability, they may be waivered to a higher WL by a Canopy Instructor, AFFI, AFFI/E, or S &TA.

When the USPA implemented the A license canopy skills requirements, they correctly determined that Instructors were qualified to teach these basic canopy skills, without the need for further training or certification of the Instructor. As a skydiver progresses through their skydiving careers, their initial Instructor who taught them basic canopy control skills may not be qualified, or have the skills to teach more advance canopy control without further training for the original Instructor.

Therefore, I further propose the creation of the Canopy Instructor (CI) rating. A coach rating would be required to become a CI. Whereas the AFFI/ SLI/Coach rating courses focus on free-fall skills and instruction, the CI rating would focus on canopy skills and instruction. A one or two-day course where a Canopy Instructor Candidate learns how to teach more advanced canopy control. Each candidate will be required to demonstrate the ability to perform and teach advanced canopy control skills. A thought would be to simply add canopy piloting skills and canopy instruction skills to the current I rating courses. This brings up the dilemma of a great free-fall Instructor and flyer that cant fly a canopy or teach canopy piloting very well not being able to teach free-fall skills, what a waste. Also, a CI would not be working with pre A license students, but licensed skydivers, and dont require the free-fall skills and teaching ability to teach advance canopy skills. So the CI rating would be similar to the Coach rating, except focusing on canopy skills, not free-fall skills.

License # Jumps Maximum Wing loading

A license 25 1 psf max
B license 100 1.1 psf max
C license 200 1.3 psf max
D license 500 no limit


Skills covered for each license:

High performance malfunctions
Flat/Flared turns
Collision avoidance/flying in traffic
Sliders (Kill line, stowage, etc)
Accuracy skills
Basic Principles of Flight
Recovery Arc
Effects of wing loading
Canopy Maintenance
Adjusting Steering Line Length
Preventing and Curing Line Twists
Canopy Piloting Skills
Long Spot Techniques
Flying in Turbulence
Dealing with Traffic
Approach and Landing
Accuracy
Off DZ landings
Crosswind/downwind landings.

For each license, each topic will be covered more in-depth, building upon prior teaching and experience.

Thoughts?

Derek


(This post was edited by Hooknswoop on Nov 4, 2003, 5:26 PM)


towerrat  (D 28189)

Nov 4, 2003, 2:07 PM
Post #2 of 110 (2803 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Fantastic. Bravo! This is the only truly thought out answer to this problem I have seen on these forums. The only thing I would change is the wing load limits between the C and D license. With 400 jumps and a 1.4 wing load on an elliptical canopy, I am very comfortable. I bought my canopy from the head instructor at my DZ ( very large DZ ) and have had no problems in handling it. I bought it with 300 jumps and no formal canopy training, but I must admit that my landings were watched before He would sell it to me.

If they were to bring about a canopy instructor rating, that would be the only instructor rating I would set my sights on.-------------------------------------------


AggieDave  (D License)

Nov 4, 2003, 2:28 PM
Post #3 of 110 (2780 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

This I can and do agree with. Especially the idea of creating a Canopy Instructor rating. Personally, I think having a rated jumper that has the skill and the ability to teach canopy control would give people a person to turn to for canopy type questions. Also, it would give a system for giving proper information to jumpers. Where as now, jumpers, especially new jumpers, may be given wrong information due to their choice in people they listen to.
I would add, though, that a CI would have to have become a USPA Coach first, especially since the Coach rating deals with teaching tequniques and the freefall skills are very basic.

Adding WL restrictions to the BSRs in accordance to license may not go over well, since folks would see that as an attempt for the USPA to drum up more money by "requiring" folks to "buy" their license to get the ability to downsize. A lot of folks do what I did, they get their A then they get their D, nothing inbetween.

Also, this all falls back on a DZ's willingness to actually inforce BSRs, and as you know, this would go back to $$$, since enforcing WL BSRs could hurt a DZO in their pocket book.


catfishhunter  (D 28796)

Nov 4, 2003, 2:28 PM
Post #4 of 110 (2779 views)
Shortcut
Re: [towerrat] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Did your brain hurt after writing that? Wink That read like it took allot of thought.

I am fairly new to the sport but it doesn't take a rocket sceince to see that 90-99% of the incidents always seem to be about people going in with fully functioning canopies. Anything that can be done to reduce the casulties should be explored and impleminted ( can't spell )


sundevil777  (D License)

Nov 4, 2003, 3:02 PM
Post #5 of 110 (2746 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

I know of the DZ in Kansas that has a WL restriction, what other DZs also do this?

At the time of the thread on the Kansas DZ, their web site had no info about their restriction. I hope the others make their rules known loud and clear.


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Nov 4, 2003, 3:05 PM
Post #6 of 110 (2741 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Nice post Derek (as usual), I just skimmed through it but once again I gotta raise the flag when looking at wingloading only. You know that a small person could end up under a 120 and still have less than a 1:1 wingloading. Sooooo I'd put in minimum canopy sizes. Everything else I agree with so far.

Something like:
A license 25 1 psf max - 170 min
B license 100 1.1 psf max -150 min
C license 200 1.3 psf max - 135 min
D license 500 no limit - no min.

I'm pretty sure the canopy sizes could be refined more, but you get the idea.

Blue skies
Ian


Scrumpot  (D License)

Nov 4, 2003, 3:15 PM
Post #7 of 110 (2729 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Adding WL restrictions to the BSRs in accordance to license may not go over well, since folks would see that as an attempt for the USPA to drum up more money by "requiring" folks to "buy" their license to get the ability to downsize. A lot of folks do what I did, they get their A then they get their D, nothing inbetween.

I dunno Dave. At least as I "interperet" it. This seems to actually take into consideration, the one major resistance point I have always had with 'similar' previously proposed WL BSR's. And that is best illustrated by giving my own personal example. I am an "A" license holder only. I have however, also over 800 jumps. This has been to date, something that I have always just considered (percieved as) one of my "personal freedoms" (choices) in skydiving to do (not necessarily "opt for" any further "licenses"). The way I read this, I am actually "waiverable" quite easily. I actually see no infringements in my percieved personal freddoms relative to this at all. ...Correct me Hook, if I am wrong.

I'm still not 100% "sold" yet, but this proposal comes as close, and is clearly more THOROUGHLY thought out than many before it that I have seen. I began reading this with the preconceived intent (based upon it's title) and fully looking for nothing more than to "pick it apart". I'm still reading it. ...and re-reading it. This obviously (again) took quite a bit of forthought and thorough consideration. It deserves a commensurate return courtesy of our more thorough consideration therefor as well. I will get back to you. Wink

Seriously. I respect the position (and obvious EFFORT) of offering at least (reasonably thought-out) PROPOSALS, vs some who merely spout instead nothing more than critisisms. You've got my attention.

Blue Skies,
-Grant


(This post was edited by Scrumpot on Nov 4, 2003, 3:18 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 4, 2003, 3:16 PM
Post #8 of 110 (2728 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

>You know that a small person could end up under a 120 and still
> have less than a 1:1 wingloading.

Which is a good thing in my book. A 90 pound woman flying a 170 sq ft canopy will not be able to learn much about canopy flight. Although overall size has something to do with performance, wing loading is a much better predictor of how forgiving a canopy will be - and that 25 jump woman under a 150 will be safer than a 25 jump guy who weighs 150 jumping a 170.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Nov 4, 2003, 3:16 PM
Post #9 of 110 (2728 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Skydive Coastal Carolinas

Skydive Kansas

Skydive Myrtle Beach

Are the 3 that I know of.

Derek


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Nov 4, 2003, 3:19 PM
Post #10 of 110 (2721 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Correct, you could be 'waivered' to an unlimited WL with only an A license. You are not forced to get any license beyond the A.

Edit: You would still have to meet/complete the canopy training requirements for each license.

Derek


(This post was edited by Hooknswoop on Nov 4, 2003, 3:29 PM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Nov 4, 2003, 3:46 PM
Post #11 of 110 (2686 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I just skimmed through it but once again I gotta raise the flag when looking at wingloading only. You know that a small person could end up under a 120 and still have less than a 1:1 wingloading. Sooooo I'd put in minimum canopy sizes.

Like the Minimum Pull Altitude BSR's, these are maximums. A WL BSR shouldn't relieve S & TA's, etc from their responsibility. If someone jumps a canopy that takes 1,500 feet to open and has a D license that doesn't mean they should pull at 2,000 feet. Just becaue someone can fly at a higher wingload doesn't mean they should. A WL BSR would standardize a policy between all DZ's and remove a lot of the problems before they arise and are either delt with by S & TA's, etc or fall through the (very wide) cracks. Making the BSR too complicated and cumbersome will reduce it's effectiveness and implimintation. Look what happened to the ISP when it was first released.

Derek


KATO33  (C 33806)

Nov 4, 2003, 3:59 PM
Post #12 of 110 (2675 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

To me it seems this requires a split of the sport(not a bad thing).

In other word A license system for FreeFall And A license system for canopy piloting.

A person could hold a D freefall License with a B canopy Pilot License Or Vice Versa depending on the direction the jumper wants to go.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Nov 4, 2003, 4:29 PM
Post #13 of 110 (2660 views)
Shortcut
Re: [KATO33] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
To me it seems this requires a split of the sport(not a bad thing).

In other word A license system for FreeFall And A license system for canopy piloting.

A person could hold a D freefall License with a B canopy Pilot License Or Vice Versa depending on the direction the jumper wants to go.

That's an interesting thought.Smile Might be taking it too far thogh. It has to be simple, or it won't be accepted. I think a good measuring stick, is; "Can a skydiver understand it on the first try after a few beers?".Tongue

Derek


lug  (D License)

Nov 4, 2003, 4:35 PM
Post #14 of 110 (2659 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Is not to bad a piece of work I am still trying to digest all of it, but for now I am cutting into piece and having a look.

In your C/I ratings since you refer to them as instructors. Will the C/I be able to administer A, and B, license test like all other instructor can do now including the A license check dive. If not, I think, you should call it something else like, Canopy Coach or Canopy Trainer.

License with canopy sizes limitations that cuts into my freedom to choose and that a bad idea. Instead, focus on this whole thing as a rating, kind of like aircraft pilots have to go through. Think of it as being Type Rated for a specific aircraft or configuration. Wow what a concept. Just prove knowledge and skill. No waivers need to be filled or particular licenses needs to be acquired for the rating. I think the key is being type rated it gives people the option to go or not to go small with out affecting their licensing.. Wing loading, shape, size, or combination of the three would classify the different type ratings.


(This post was edited by lug on Nov 4, 2003, 4:57 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 4, 2003, 5:19 PM
Post #15 of 110 (2634 views)
Shortcut
Re: [KATO33] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

>In other word A license system for FreeFall And A license system for
>canopy piloting.

I think that would be a can of worms. It would lead to an A license for freeflying, an A license for wingsuits etc. They are all very different disciplines.

I think the licensing system should remain pretty general, with each step representing some skill in a broad range of disciplines - freeflying (i.e. style series) canopy flight (accuracy) RW (falcon, eagle etc.) If we want to have a separate _rating_ system then do that. Perhaps we could even do it with awards - have a Canopy 1 award that indicates the jumper can flat turn 90, flare turn 45 etc on a certain canopy. That could both set standards for performance and have a method by which people can "prove" their skills.


dterrick  (B 5079)

Nov 4, 2003, 6:25 PM
Post #16 of 110 (2612 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Very well thought out.

May I add someting pertaining for foreign jumpers?

Until very recently, what constituted an "A-D" license in USPA was very different from that of Canada - and indeed most of the countries who followed the FAI minimums. The USPA doctrine did not recognize the differing licensing requirements of other countries. This seemingly minor point could hurt a lot of Canadians travelling Stateside in the cold winter months if that same attitude applied to a wingload restriction based on "licenses" (reference the "grandfathered" 200 jump D license wonders out there. Maybe give everybody a 24 month phase in period to bring their jump numbers inline?)

In order to get a CSPA C license, for example, you need the bare minimum 200 jumps as well as advanced demonstratd skills in 2 areas. Accuracy is one but to qualify you need to be scored electronically - something that happens only at the National competition. Otherwise you are stuck with demonstrating 4 way, a fast style set (13 sec corrected) , corrected freefly series in 16 (from a C-182 at 9 grand?) or CReW (again, only a handful of places to do this). But for those who aspire to demo or advanced coach ratings, most people stop at a B in Canada. At 1.1:1 you're gonna chop a lot of us all from your manifest but 1.25:1 would likely cover all the "reasonable people". Actually getting the USPA to acknowledge foreign credentials and ratings without question would be the other way to settle the issue. We have no hard and fast "currency table" as USPA does because most of us are on winter layoff for 5-6 months. I got caught up in this on my first trip stateside - though it would have been so easy to pencil whip a winter jump or 2. Why play games with weather-challenged visitors?



That said, do I personally think that anybody needs to be under a sub-150 class at less than 500 jumps no matter what their exit weight is? Not likely unless they're very light and then maybe a 135 is a reasonable limit. Do I agree with wavering based on canopy courses? Absolutely. Do I think as a foreigner jumping at a USPA DZ that I should be "forced" to go someplace to take a course other than where I'm otherwise planning to travel? Well let's say no for now until EVERYONE has a reasonably priced, standardized course available. In fact, an advanced canopy control class is high on my list of desired classes ... it's just a small matter of a several-thousand-dollar "vacation" Shocked

If you take the either/or criteria from your table, those with 200-500 jumps at 1.3 is quite inline with "the norm" in most places in Canada. Perhaps stemming from our 6 month season we are generally more conservative. I won't say that we don't also have our share of aggressive pilots, but I've never even SEEN a sub-100 sq. ft canopy never mind a swoop pond. I'm guessing if you looked at the standard deviation of canopy choice (the survey you figure USPA will not sanction) you'll find that it's the 10% of pilots at the high end of the wingload scale that are involved in the crashes. Of that 10%, I'll bet that 80% of the incidents come from those who have less than 500 jumps or 3-5 years in the sport. We're back to the 2-3% of the sport who make things bad for us all.

Yours is the best proposal yet. Something that's been said to me by several Canadian veterans of the spot I jump with (and who helped write our current doctrine) is that "the rules evolved because people died when the rules were either non-existant or restrictive enough that nobody followed them anyway". I think you're well on the way to a 'reasonable' rule, Derek. Don't quit on this one yet.


Dave


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Nov 5, 2003, 6:57 AM
Post #17 of 110 (2538 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
A 90 pound woman flying a 170 sq ft canopy will not be able to learn much about canopy flight.

Sorry I can't agree with you there. There is plenty that person can learn on a larger canopy. Will they learn swooping at mach4 - no, but they shouldn't be either at that stage, there are other things to learn first that a 170 is perfectly suitable for.

Quote:
Although overall size has something to do with performance, wing loading is a much better predictor of how forgiving a canopy will be

I agree. Problem is that if you go on wingloading alone you have the potential to put small people under a small canopy too soon. I've seen this happen first hand and have the person (less than 100 jumps on a 120 loaded at approx .9) end up in hospital (very very broken) before then end of 3 weeks under the canopy. Would they have been hurt under a 150? Maybe, certainly not as severly as they were though, in fact I believe they would have been able to recover the situation they put themselves in if they'd been under a 150.

I think wingloading is a good indicator but SIZE shouldn't be ignored as a factor too.

Quote:
and that 25 jump woman under a 150 will be safer than a 25 jump guy who weighs 150 jumping a 170.

Once again agreed, but a 120 is not a 150 (as you already know), I really believe that a 150 is the smallest someone with under 100 jumps should go (assuming they don't exceed the wingloadings discussed).

Blue skies
Ian


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Nov 5, 2003, 7:01 AM
Post #18 of 110 (2535 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
the BSR too complicated and cumbersome will reduce it's effectiveness and implimintation.

I agree but it would be in line with the 2004 SIM advanced recomendations don't you think?

Quote:
From the new SIMS with regards to what is considered advanced canopy flight:

a. above 230 square feet, 1.1 pounds per square foot or higher

b. from 190 to 229 square feet, 1.0 pounds per square foot or higher

c. from 150 to 189 square feet, .9 pounds per square foot or higher

d. canopies smaller than 150 square feet at any wing loading

Blue skies
Ian


Scrumpot  (D License)

Nov 5, 2003, 7:49 AM
Post #19 of 110 (2520 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Problem is that if you go on wingloading alone you have the potential to put small people under a small canopy too soon. I've seen this happen first hand and have the person (less than 100 jumps on a 120 loaded at approx .9) end up in hospital (very very broken)...
Is there a rate of "diminishing returns" (for lack of better terminology) as it relates to wing loading alone vs. sheer canopy size once you get down to a certain size level?
Is .9 - 1.0/1 NOT the same on a 190 sq ft canopy with someone weighing (exit weight) 190 lbs as it is with someone say under conceptually a 120 at 120 lbs?

What do we do then with our 80-100lb wafer-thin people out there then? How do they fit in to this equation? Or don't they? I remember when I was (way back when now Wink) on (and just off) student status at @200lbs exit weight, under a 310 being very afraid in winds getting even just barely over 5mph! Isn't a 90lb jumper under a 150+ going to suffer the same concerns/consequences? I would think that a 120 (non-eliptical of course) in their case would be fully appropriate, wouldn't it?

Help me understand these components perhaps, just a litlle better then if you would please; because if I comprehend your position & what you are saying here correctly, you are saying that this would NOT be (and apparently wasn't for your jumper in example) appropriate at all either. Right?

Unless the canopy planform (eliptical vs "square" for instance) were completely different, wouldn't the flight characteristics be basicaly identical based upon wing-loading (weight to wing size) ratio's?

Also, where in here is planform addressed? Should it be a part of this? I would think that there is also a BIG DIFFERENCE (maybe even bigger than just wing loading alone too) between a 30-jump wonder being put under a 1.0/1 PD-190 vs a Stilletto or Heatwave 190 let's say too. ...Does anybody disagree with that?


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Nov 5, 2003, 8:03 AM
Post #20 of 110 (2510 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi,

Quote:
Is there a rate of "diminishing returns" (for lack of better terminology) as it relates to wing loading alone vs. sheer canopy size once you get down to a certain size level?
Is .9 - 1.0/1 NOT the same on a 190 sq ft canopy with someone weighing (exit weight) 190 lbs as it is with someone say under conceptually a 120 at 120 lbs?

I'm certainly no technical guru, but I'd suggest checking out the article by John LeBlanc (PD) Wingloading and it's effects for a better explaination than I could possibly give.

Quote:
What do we do then with our 80-100lb wafer-thin people out there then? How do they fit in to this equation? Or don't they? I remember when I was (way back when now ) on (and just off) student status at @200lbs exit weight, under a 310 being very afraid in winds getting even just barely over 5mph! Isn't a 90lb jumper under a 150+ going to suffer the same concerns/consequences? I would think that a 120 (non-eliptical of course) in their case would be fully appropriate, wouldn't it?

I've seen those people do spectacularly on PD 190's (even I thought that was excessively big) and they'd probably do ok under a 150, but certainly no smaller. The only conditions they may not be able to jump in is 20mph + winds and when they're in the 100 jump range, it may not be a bad idea to keep them on the ground anyway. How often do you see less experienced jumpers going up in windy conditions while the more experienced sit on the ground? Quite a bit in my experience.

Quote:
Unless the canopy planform (eliptical vs "square" for instance) were completely different, wouldn't the flight characteristics be basicaly identical based upon wing-loading (weight to wing size) ratio's?

The canopy in question was a Sabre and no - the characteristics would be very different for the same wingloading on 2 different size canopies - Check out that PD article it'll explain it far better than I.

Hope this helps shed light on my position.

Blue skies
Ian


base698  (D 23456)

Nov 5, 2003, 8:10 AM
Post #21 of 110 (2507 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

The argument essentially goes something like this. Even at identical wingloads a smaller canopy has less drag on the whole system as well as shorter lines. The shorter lines allow for snappier response of the canopy.

I have one problem with it. First, it ignores that a small jumper will not learn much if anything about canopy traffic. They'll never learn to yield to lower jumpers or someone on the same level intentionally because of their super light loading.


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Nov 5, 2003, 8:15 AM
Post #22 of 110 (2503 views)
Shortcut
Re: [base698] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I have one problem with it. First, it ignores that a small jumper will not learn much if anything about canopy traffic. They'll never learn to yield to lower jumpers or someone on the same level intentionally because of their super light loading.

Possibly true, but these light people are in the minority and the majority of people I've seen who haven't learnt to hang in breaks do not fit into the light person category. So, for now, I must conclude that this is a training issue independent of the actualy canopy size. Much like enforcing patterns, which include (IMO) vertical levels.

Blue skies
Ian


rgoper  (C 32349)

Nov 5, 2003, 9:49 AM
Post #23 of 110 (2483 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If you have an A license, but have 7000 jumps, you will only be allowed to jump up to the 25 jump wing load. And I will scold you as to why you haven't paid the $20.00 for your D license. (Quote taken from the first link in your post to sky dive coastal carolina)

this is just one of the reasons i don't agree with wing load BSR's. it will be just one more tool that somebody will use to be an even bigger pain. if DZO's are already doing this much, how much more wont they do if given more authority? the only reason i don't have a "D" is because i'm not going to jump out of a plane at night, this is my choice and no one should be "sanctioned" for it, i have my reasons for which i will offer no explanation. i am in agreement however with the training program you outlined, but i think that a canopy instructor should fall in the USPA coach requirement area. let's be honest, how many TM, and AFF's will be willing to babysit new jumpers with their canopy control when they could be up doing "money jumps?" reason being is because it is all about the $$$ to begin with. i know i've screamed and hollered "common sense" at least a dozen times about this issue, but it looks as if even some very experienced sky divers and canopy pilots have been making as many fatal decisions as of late as the "low timers"


(This post was edited by rgoper on Nov 5, 2003, 9:55 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 5, 2003, 10:28 AM
Post #24 of 110 (2469 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

>There is plenty that person can learn on a larger canopy. Will they
> learn swooping at mach4 - no . . .

You're right, but let me clarify. People will not learn the survival skills they need to safely fly small canopies by jumping under extremely large canopies. Since it's a lack of these skills that account for most of the injuries and fatalities under good canopies, passing a rule that essentially prohibits even moderate loadings for a certain class of people (small women) puts them at a disadvantage.

>I think wingloading is a good indicator but SIZE shouldn't be ignored as a factor too.

I agree there, but planform, trim, canopy material and density altitude are also factors. A BSR that has a formula that requires you to plug in 6 factors isn't going to be enforced. I think that keeping the restriction simple (to wingloading) makes the most sense, since wingloading has a lot more to do with how forgiving a canopy is than absolute size.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 5, 2003, 10:33 AM
Post #25 of 110 (2466 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post

>Is .9 - 1.0/1 NOT the same on a 190 sq ft canopy with someone
> weighing (exit weight) 190 lbs as it is with someone say under
> conceptually a 120 at 120 lbs?

Definitely not. The smaller canopy will turn faster, for example. That's why many smaller women are happier with more lightly loaded canopies - they get similar performance from a larger canopy.

> Isn't a 90lb jumper under a 150+ going to suffer the same
>concerns/consequences? I would think that a 120 (non-eliptical of
> course) in their case would be fully appropriate, wouldn't it?

That's the big issue. Putting a 90lb woman under a 89sqft canopy is not the answer, but neither is it putting her under a 150. A 135 at .85 to 1 will give her reasonable performance, but will reduce the chances of her backing up in high winds etc and still not be harder to control than a 190 at 1.0 to 1.


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

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)