0
chuckakers

Solving the Canopy Thing

Recommended Posts

Quote


How's that going to help people that refuse to keep their eyes open for other jumpers?



Telling such a broad group of people to be 'more careful' with no enforcement or enhanced training/monitoring will likely be as effective a deterrent at getting people to change bad flying habits as the surgeon general's warning on cigarettes is at keeping people from smoking.

Quote

Rules and regulations won't fix that. Education and awareness will.



A mandatory training program like AFF would ensure that very education was given, and the rating system would require experience to progress which can aid in improving awareness of how to do the more advanced maneuvers in a controlled fashion vs the pilot ending up a 'passenger' to their swoop.

Quote

It's on the DZOs to MAKE collision avoidance a part of the culture at their drop zone (including enacting policies to mitigate some of the risk factors specific to their DZ). It's on the instructors and mentors to drill it into the heads of the less experienced jumpers. It's on EVERYONE to have zero tolerance for close calls and dangerous jumpers.



In a sport where the term ‘like herding cats’ is used frequently to describe getting a group of skydivers to do anything the same way or at the same time: How else besides a regulation are you going to get so many DZO’s to do anything other than to sign a useless pledge card to placate the USPA (and give the USPA their ‘out’ for not doing anything useful about the problem), give a canopy review class or two, then fall right back into business as usual when the ‘summer season’ starts? More to the point, in that same busy season, the most experienced instructors are likely to be in the classroom, on a load, or otherwise too occupied to give critique/feedback to the ‘experienced’ jumpers.

Even assuming they had the time, with the lack of ratings and training courses, this comment assumes that the instructors at every DZ are qualified to give advice other than the basic landing pattern instructions. A CPI (Canopy Pilot Instructor) rating would ensure there is a consistent and well documented training course for both teacher and student alike to refer to.

Quote

Vigilance under the canopy needs to be taught from jump one and reinforced to no end. "See and avoid" needs to be just as much a mantra for skydivers as it is for VFR pilots.



I completely agree – but this does nothing for the lack of consistent training for canopy piloting after the AFF basics. It also does nothing to weed out the idiots who refuse to listen and go ‘DZ Shopping’ for a 'yes' after being told 'no'.

Quote

Sure, you can regulate the danger away and make it impossible for people to hurt themselves. Keep going down that road, though, and eventually we'll all be doing our "jumping" in wind tunnels.



I'm as much for self policing as the next guy, but so far it doesn't seem that route has been effective. That’s why the USPA should do something other than send out ‘alerts’ before the FAA steps in. How many deaths this year so far?

~GaVak
Life doesn't need reasons, just participants.

D.S.#21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one seems willing to acknowledge the simple truth.

A device built to save lives is now a life taker.

The technology has overtaken the ability of users to use it safely on a consistent basis.

Just as you can't just jump into an Indycar, F1 car. and we don't think its a good idea to hand out loaded guns at the kindergarten.

The canopies are simply too small, and too fast.

So what next???.
Quote


My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is there a standard incident form that dzo's/s&ta's fill out for the USPA when an incident occurs? How detailed are the questions already on it? Could they be improved?



You can find a copy of one on the USPA web site.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

we stop counting and licensing after someone hits 500 jumps and their D license;



More and more jumpers do just enough to get their A license and never seek another. If they are not going for a rating or competition that’s all they need.

Quote

The missing element is 'required' training and licensing. How hard would it be to implement a CPI role with the following license categories?



One of the missing elements is enforment of exiting rules, do think adding another layere will change that?

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


-Telling such a broad group of people to be 'more careful' with no enforcement or enhanced training/monitoring

-In a sport where the term ‘like herding cats’ is used frequently to describe getting a group of skydivers to do anything the same way or at the same time:

-How else besides a regulation are you going to get so many DZO’s to do anything

-most experienced instructors are likely to be in the classroom, on a load, or otherwise too occupied to give critique/feedback to the ‘experienced’ jumpers.

-comment assumes that the instructors at every DZ are qualified to give advice other than the basic landing pattern instructions.

-does nothing to weed out the idiots who refuse to listen and go ‘DZ Shopping’ for a 'yes' after being told 'no'.

-I'm as much for self policing as the next guy, but so far it doesn't seem that route has been effective.



Self-policing is not working because people are standing by watching the carnage and not doing a damned thing to stop it. It's not working because people have the mindset that stupidty is "cool" these days. It's not working because people are standing by and letting that arrogant, "I'm holier than thou" attitude prevail.

It could be more effective if DZOs enforced more stringent rules. I could be more effective if every DZO and every jumper will grow some balls and stand up to the bozos and let it be known that stupidity will not be tolerated. Stand up to the bozos and let it be known that they, the bozos, WILL STOP the stupidity and it doesn't matter how "cool" they are, how many jumps they have, how long they've been in the sport or what type of rating they have.

You seem to be all about education for advanced canopy piloting and have expressed no clear view of the value of promoting and enforcing a simple, basic landing pattern.

I whole-heartedly agree that more structured canopy training is a good thing and indeed it could prevent those incidents where skill level is an issue.

As I see things now, it's not so much skill level problems as it is attitude and attention level problems recently.

Changing the attitude is simple....you abide by the rules or you're gone.

One way to get people to pay more attention is to have defined consequences for not doing so...hopefully something other than injury or death. AHA! Here's where the DZO and the community as a whole come in.

-DZO makes and enforces the rules.
-Community changes away from the mindset that stupidity is cool

Sadly, all the training and skill in the world is no help when you're flying with your head up your ass whether it's hook turns or simple, basic pattern flying.


Quote

That’s why the USPA should do something...


I see you advocate more canopy piloting training.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

and crw has gotten more dangerous because those canopies are also highly load ZP.
Crw at the end of the jump didn't end for safety reasons.



You should re-read what yo just posted.


To explain.
Sorry to be unclear.
CRW at the end of jumps ended because we no longer all flew 7-cell canopies loaded at .8. When all our canopies were slower, more stable, and pretty much matched for wing-load, CRW was safer and easier.
With the broad range of more specialized canopies, eliptilces, a wide range of wing-loads and the desire by some to concentrate on setting up for the swoop, CRW is no longer practical.
And (I get your point) no longer safe
This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's not working because people are standing by and letting that arrogant, "I'm holier than thou" attitude prevail……..

It could be more effective if DZOs enforced more stringent rules………

Changing the attitude is simple....you abide by the rules or you're gone………

One way to get people to pay more attention is to have defined consequences for not doing so...hopefully something other than injury or death. AHA! Here's where the DZO and the community as a whole come in………

DZO makes and enforces the rules……..

Sadly, all the training and skill in the world is no help when you're flying with your head up your ass whether it's hook turns or simple, basic pattern flying………..



+ 1

Really people the answer is just this simple.

Education is a waste of time if it is not backed up by a clear set of rules enforced on everyone.

Separate landing areas are a waste of time if the rules defining separate areas are not enforced.

If change doesn’t come I fear that the skydiving world will be reduced to “Tandem Factories” and DZO’s will not have to deal with “Entitlement Generation” mentality.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is definitely not too many canopies in the air. All of the 100-ways I've been on have been very, very safe under canopy. I've been on some breakoffs that were a bit scary, but never scary canopy traffic on a 100-way, and that's a LOT of canopies. A skydiver under an open canopy doesn't take up much space, and they can safely land side by side. There's room for everyone as long as people look around and pay attention, and fly a pattern that doesn't come into conflict with what everyone else is doing. Bigway canopy flying is easy enough: You select a safe piece of ground, estimate if you have enough altitude to do an approved pattern to it, and then choose empty chunks of air to get there. Accuracy isn't a priority, not touching anything that moves is. It works on smaller skydivers as well, just like bigway tracking works on 2-ways.

On the other hand, I've been on some pretty scary 20-way traffic because everyone had to take off their booties and take the slider down. Not to mention the fatality on the 30-way, and that was a big landing area too.

It takes two people to make a canopy collision.

And you newer jumpers, I'm very surprised that I find myself repeating this at my home DZ all the time: t's possible to fly on half brakes just after opening and look and see what's happening instead of spiralling down and then be surprised when you enter the landing pattern.
Relax, you can die if you mess up, but it will probably not be by bullet.

I'm a BIG, TOUGH BIGWAY FORMATION SKYDIVER! What are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It takes two people to make a canopy collision.



Quote



I keep hearing that and it's bullshit, you can be flying perfectly safe in the pattern and be taken out from above totally without warning...unless you want to fault the person being taken out for just being on the load at the dropzone that day.











~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



It takes two people to make a canopy collision.



Quote



I keep hearing that and it's bullshit, you can be flying perfectly safe in the pattern and be taken out from above totally without warning...unless you want to fault the person being taken out for just being on the load at the dropzone that day.



Try having a canopy collision with only one person in the air!

It does take two people to have a canopy collision - but they are not necessarily both equally at fault (per your example above).

The complete quote makes more sense; "It takes two people to have a canopy collision, but only one to avoid it.". My interpretation is that I don't take that as assigning blame, just a statement of fact.

"Low man has the right of way" would tend to indicate that who ever was higher at/just before the time of impact was at fault (again, per your example above).
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Low man has the right of way" would tend to indicate that who ever was higher at/just before the time of impact was at fault (again, per your example above).

Quote



Yup that's the way I've always understood it, the job is to avoid the people below you...when EVERYBODY does that there is no problem.

And if you're going to say it takes two people to have a canopy collision, might as well say it takes 7,903,215 people to have a canopy collision...semantics aside, makes about as much sense.

Better yet, it takes 33,000 USPA members to NOT have a canopy collision.











~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naw, he's right, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about high-performance landings being separated from others.

It takes two to have one, but it only takes one to cause one. Both can contribute, but it can definitely be a single-party-at-fault situation.

OTOH, the part he wrote about it only takes one to avoid it is bullshit. Because the one has to know it's coming to avoid it.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

"It takes two people to have a canopy collision, but only one to avoid it."



Where have I seen that before?


It was YOUR fault because you didn't avoid.
:D:D:P

If anyone said that to you, I hope they enjoy the new asshole you reamed out for them.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

"It takes two people to have a canopy collision, but only one to avoid it."



Where have I seen that before?



Was that you? I truly did not know.

I think it's a great sentence, and had I known the source I would have given credit. I thought it was just one of those things people say! More people should think and fly like this.
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a lot of good ideas here. I'm new to the sport, but want to be safe and want to be safe to those around me.

I'm a scientist so as Chuck said, yes we need data, but we also need honesty and transparency, intelligence and common sense, and we need to acknowledge that (like driving a car), there is inherent risk in this sport and we can't control what others do.

Like all human endeavors, things tend to get more complex. Now it's not a bunch or round unsteerable canopies dropping down. It's a mix of low, medium, and high performance canopies. It's a mix of experience levels and awareness. It's a mix of conservative and aggressive attitudes. All potentially converging in a small area.

Paradoxically at the same time, there is a strong culture of safety regarding the planes, jump order and exit times, and the equipment. Everyone wants to look out for each other in these areas. But for some reason, when it comes to getting back on the ground, the safety consciousness isn't as strong. The adrenaline kicks in. We might not see everything around us. It takes concentration and skill.

So if the complexity is higher with many more variables and variations occurring in the air, a good approach is to first understand the variables by doing EXPERIMENTS. We don't necessarily need canopy collision incident data.

Here are some possible variables (not complete but an example):

Geographic:
- LZ length/width, location, obstacles
- Landing off options
Rules/Enforcement
- Landing patterns, hp approaches, etc.
Environmental:
- Wind speed, direction, variability
Individual:
- Landing pattern and approach (actual vs. suggested vs. enforced)
- Canopy speed
- Experience level, training, attitude (e.g. conservative vs adrenaline junky...)
Group:
- Small vs. large loads
- Type/mix of jumpers (tandem, free, belly...)
Other:
- Canopy color

One experiment could be to video an LZ over multiple days and conditions and see if there are patterns or problems that emerge, potentially as a function of any of the variables above (perhaps gathered via anonymous interviews or jumpers volunteering info). The idea isn't to single out offenders but learn from the data.

Another approach could be to experiment with more separation and enforcement of distinct disciplines... swoopers in a separate area or on a separate jump run or both. See how it works, analyze the data.

The part that this won't "fix" is human error. But if we can find out where the risk can be reduced, then we've at least improved the odds for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There are a lot of good ideas here. I'm new to the sport, but want to be safe and want to be safe to those around me.

I'm a scientist so as Chuck said, yes we need data, but we also need honesty and transparency, intelligence and common sense, and we need to acknowledge that (like driving a car), there is inherent risk in this sport and we can't control what others do.

Like all human endeavors, things tend to get more complex. Now it's not a bunch or round unsteerable canopies dropping down. It's a mix of low, medium, and high performance canopies. It's a mix of experience levels and awareness. It's a mix of conservative and aggressive attitudes. All potentially converging in a small area.

Paradoxically at the same time, there is a strong culture of safety regarding the planes, jump order and exit times, and the equipment. Everyone wants to look out for each other in these areas. But for some reason, when it comes to getting back on the ground, the safety consciousness isn't as strong. The adrenaline kicks in. We might not see everything around us. It takes concentration and skill.

So if the complexity is higher with many more variables and variations occurring in the air, a good approach is to first understand the variables by doing EXPERIMENTS. We don't necessarily need canopy collision incident data.

Here are some possible variables (not complete but an example):

Geographic:
- LZ length/width, location, obstacles
- Landing off options
Rules/Enforcement
- Landing patterns, hp approaches, etc.
Environmental:
- Wind speed, direction, variability
Individual:
- Landing pattern and approach (actual vs. suggested vs. enforced)
- Canopy speed
- Experience level, training, attitude (e.g. conservative vs adrenaline junky...)
Group:
- Small vs. large loads
- Type/mix of jumpers (tandem, free, belly...)
Other:
- Canopy color

One experiment could be to video an LZ over multiple days and conditions and see if there are patterns or problems that emerge, potentially as a function of any of the variables above (perhaps gathered via anonymous interviews or jumpers volunteering info). The idea isn't to single out offenders but learn from the data.

Another approach could be to experiment with more separation and enforcement of distinct disciplines... swoopers in a separate area or on a separate jump run or both. See how it works, analyze the data.

The part that this won't "fix" is human error. But if we can find out where the risk can be reduced, then we've at least improved the odds for everyone.



Very good post, and a good way to start the process. Now where can we make this happen, and who is gonna start?.

The stat that is already obvious....no further data needed, is the number of injuries and fatals under open canopies.

In the face of this known information, there is a huge resistance to acknowledge that there is, in fact an obvious solution, but the blind adherance to "individual rights" means that people are going to continue dying in this brainless desire to continue death inducing behaviour.

Either the attitudes and behaviour has to change, or the equipment has to change...there are no other options.

There are many aircraft pilots in the world, but very few of them fly fast jets. Why should our pilots regard themselves as top gun fast jet pilots. The reality is 95% of them aren't, and never will be.

Your suggestions will put us on the right track to achieve the first, but how many dead men walking are we going to be lookng at on our DZ's before the change is effective.

Time IS of the essence.

But every suggestion is worthwhile, and yours are worthy of introduction.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great post....

Quote


There are many aircraft pilots in the world, but very few of them fly fast jets. Why should our pilots regard themselves as top gun fast jet pilots. The reality is 95% of them aren't, and never will be.



What is nuts is that the rest of us have no problem with the "jet pilots" flying with us...although most of use are flying 182...in the pattern
Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Very good post, and a good way to start the process. Now where can we make this happen, and who is gonna start?.

The stat that is already obvious....no further data needed, is the number of injuries and fatals under open canopies.

In the face of this known information, there is a huge resistance to acknowledge that there is, in fact an obvious solution, but the blind adherance to "individual rights" means that people are going to continue dying in this brainless desire to continue death inducing behaviour.

Either the attitudes and behaviour has to change, or the equipment has to change...there are no other options.

There are many aircraft pilots in the world, but very few of them fly fast jets. Why should our pilots regard themselves as top gun fast jet pilots. The reality is 95% of them aren't, and never will be.

Your suggestions will put us on the right track to achieve the first, but how many dead men walking are we going to be lookng at on our DZ's before the change is effective.

Time IS of the essence.

But every suggestion is worthwhile, and yours are worthy of introduction.



Thanks for the nice words. And Wendy it looks like we're thinking along the same lines (you were first:).

You say time is of the essence. That's true. But like so many human endeavors these days if there are possible issues with something we are doing (say a toxin that might cause birth defects or a high speed limit that seems to correlate with higher traffic fatalities), we have to first "prove" there is an issue at all, and then find the cause(s) through studies and analysis. Then there are debates on what is the right law or policy with groups fighting for each side.

However, sometimes rules or laws can be enacted quickly when the threat is obvious and unacceptable and there is a probable identified cause. It might be the wrong decision or the right decision, but it is done quickly.

So is this industry/sport/group of people willing to try enacting rules that are potentially unpopular if the cause or causes are not yet perfectly understood, studied, analyzed, debated and finally proven? I don't know.


But you ask where to start, who will start?

At a minimum has anyone (USPA?) correlated the incidents to DZ-specific data, experience, canopy size/speed, etc? Even if this is done, since the statistical sample is small it might not really reveal some of the underlying issues or causes.

That's why video analysis along with "landing factors" as Wendy calls them could point out some glaring patterns of close calls or congestion. Just last weekend I saw a canopy collision close call. If this had been captured in the interest of transparency and the greater good, it could be analyzed along with all the landing factors. I'm sure in one weekend there are more close calls (or lack of proper separation) than people would like to admit. Can we learn if these are correlated with external factors (LZ, loads, canopy speed) or primarily internal factors ("uh, I wasn't looking and I think I cut that guy off") etc.

I'm willing to talk with anyone on dz.com who might want to start outlining an approach to gathering data and perhaps getting support from the USPA and permission from DZ's and jumpers as needed. Perhaps if this can be done transparently as a "grass roots" effort, fellow skydivers will volunteer to fill out forms and volunteer info on close calls etc.

Just throwing this out there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0