0
NWFlyer

USPA Seeking Feedback on Canopy Safety Proposals

Recommended Posts

http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/Safety/CanopySafetyDiscussion/tabid/495/Default.aspx

Quote

Canopy Safety Discussion

At the February Board meeting in Reno, Nevada, the Safety & Training Committee discussed many issues related to canopy control and canopy training. The goal was to come up with viable ways to help jumpers learn more about canopy flight and become better canopy pilots without instituting overly burdensome requirements. After looking through the many member suggestions from our website and meeting with canopy experts and other industry leaders, the Committee is proposing the following changes:

1. Revise the Integrated Student Program student progression to include five jumps that are dedicated solely to canopy-control training.
2. Revise the accuracy landings requirements for licenses to include declaring intent before the jump, similar to the PRO rating requirements.
3. Require completion of a Canopy Progression Card for achieving a B license.
4. Require the completion of the Canopy Progression Card before every coach and instructor’s next rating renewal.
5. Change the license tests to include more questions on canopy control.
6. Change the Coach and Instructor Rating Courses to include more training and evaluation on teaching canopy control.
7. Require each coach or instructor rating candidate to attend a canopy course geared toward teaching the candidates more about canopy control and how to teach canopy control. (This course has not been developed.)
8. Develop methods to ensure that each drop zone is separating high-performance landings from other canopy traffic and ensuring that each jumper is flying an established landing pattern.

These ideas have been posted to solicit additional feedback from USPA members. At the upcoming July board meeting, the committee will decide how to progress with the proposals. These ideas do not include the details of implementation. While some of the points are relatively straightforward, others will require a large amount of detailed planning for implementation.



I'm sure this will generate some ... um ... lively discussion here, but to make sure USPA hears your thoughts, comment on the link above as well.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My first impressions (also to be shared at some point on the USPA site)

1. Revise the Integrated Student Program student progression to include five jumps that are dedicated solely to canopy-control training.
As a static-line baby, on the face of it, I like this idea, so long as 1) it doesn't increase the overall minimum # of jumps for an A license and 2) the jumps would wind up being similar to a solo jump in cost to the student (in other words, that they don't come with some requirement that the entire canopy ride be observed by a coach/instructor from the ground or something that could significantly increase student cost).

2. Revise the accuracy landings requirements for licenses to include declaring intent before the jump, similar to the PRO rating requirements.
I'm pretty neutral on this one.

3. Require completion of a Canopy Progression Card for achieving a B license.
Like it. I think it's the right time to get a new skydiver working more on canopy control. I'd be okay if it were a C requirement, too.

4. Require the completion of the Canopy Progression Card before every coach and instructor’s next rating renewal.
Eh. Neutral to negative on this one because I suspect there will be more pencil-whipping than meaningful work done.

5. Change the license tests to include more questions on canopy control.
Neutral on this one. I don't think the tests really have much impact on overall knowledge/skills.

6. Change the Coach and Instructor Rating Courses to include more training and evaluation on teaching canopy control.
Like it. The coach course (as I experienced it) was much more freefall focused and I think the balance could be improved.

7. Require each coach or instructor rating candidate to attend a canopy course geared toward teaching the candidates more about canopy control and how to teach canopy control. (This course has not been developed.)
I prefer #6 to this one as a way to improve teaching of canopy control.

8. Develop methods to ensure that each drop zone is separating high-performance landings from other canopy traffic and ensuring that each jumper is flying an established landing pattern.
Aren't we already supposed to have this in the "Group Member Pledge"? Are we looking at an actual BSR on this one?
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll give these a shot...

1. Revise the Integrated Student Program student progression to include five jumps that are dedicated solely to canopy-control training.
This sounds like a good idea to me, but I have to disagree with not including supervision during the canopy flight. I'm afraid that without supervision there's not much to this requirement. Right now almost all of the AFF dives include canopy skills, but there is very lax/no enforcement that these skills are practiced. I'm not sure how that will change without someone watching the canopy flight. I understand the concerns about cost and I would be open to some sort of compromise on the number of jumps.

2. Revise the accuracy landings requirements for licenses to include declaring intent before the jump, similar to the PRO rating requirements.
I guess this one makes some sense, but it seems to imply that someone is going to be waiting in the landing field to verify that a certain accuracy was accomplished. It seems challenging/costly to implement.

3. Require completion of a Canopy Progression Card for achieving a B license.
I like this a lot, but I think it needs a subtle tweak to "achieving any license higher than A". I know a lot of jumpers that never bother with B or C licenses.

4. Require the completion of the Canopy Progression Card before every coach and instructor’s next rating renewal.
This seems to make sense to me, but as I'm not a rating holder my opinion is pretty much moot.

5. Change the license tests to include more questions on canopy control.
I like this one because it shouldn't take much effort to implement, and while it make not have a tremendous effect, the fact that an applicant has to study the canopy info more closely might make something stick better.

6. Change the Coach and Instructor Rating Courses to include more training and evaluation on teaching canopy control.
Again, this seems to make sense, but is beyond my experience/responsibility envelope.

7. Require each coach or instructor rating candidate to attend a canopy course geared toward teaching the candidates more about canopy control and how to teach canopy control. (This course has not been developed.)
See #6.

8. Develop methods to ensure that each drop zone is separating high-performance landings from other canopy traffic and ensuring that each jumper is flying an established landing pattern.
This, of course, is a good idea. I do understand the question of why this should be necessary given that the Group Member pledge already includes it. I take this suggestion to imply that someone will actually be enforcing this requirement of the Pledge, unlike the rest of it which seems to mostly be a marketing campaign.
Matthew Wallin
C-37899

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

3. Require completion of a Canopy Progression Card for achieving a B license.
I like this a lot, but I think it needs a subtle tweak to "achieving any license higher than A". I know a lot of jumpers that never bother with B or C licenses.



Even if you skip a license level, to get the next higher, you still have to meet all the requirements for the previous one. So even if someone never applies for a B, when they apply for a C, they'd have to document all the B and C requirements.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As a static-line baby, on the face of it, I like this idea, so long as 1) it doesn't increase the overall minimum # of jumps for an A license and 2) the jumps would wind up being similar to a solo jump in cost to the student (in other words, that they don't come with some requirement that the entire canopy ride be observed by a coach/instructor from the ground or something that could significantly increase student cost).



I agree entirely, I did static line and my first 5 jumps were all about flying a parachute. In AFF there can be too much emphasis on the free fall and the student gets guided in by radio never actually taking on the skill entirely.

There should be a minimum canopy accuracy to achieve a license, and packing currency should be checked on every license level. It astounds me to see experienced skydivers never packaging their own parachutes.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although some form of Canopy Control Course is needed, with implementation comes cost. Again, as a lot of members have raised issue to is this, who's going to pay for it? DZ's? Probably Not. USPA? Definitely not. Students, most assuredly. USPA membership? Absolutely could be.

There comes a time though when a Canopy Control Course is needed. A beginner course for A license and an Advanced course for anyone else before awarding a D level. Such as water training is required for advancement and night jumps have to be done for awarding a D.

And as far as making it mandatory for Coach/Instructor levels. Why double the effort? Just make it mandatory for the level of license that the individual is wanting to attain.

Or, are we just making this another issue because of the current trend for canopy related deaths because of a few individuals making the same mistakes that others have made over and over and over.

We are soon to be so overly regulated that the issue of who has what is all that we talk about instead of skydiving!
So, you bring your beer?

Its 5 o'clock somewhere
POPS #9344

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I just point out one thing: These are still in the discussion phases, so input is crucial. I am an advocate of getting as much input from membership as possible before doing anything.

To ellaborate on #3,
The proficiency card will be redesigned. It was tossed around where to include this requirement. Some felt C license some felt B.

My personal thought was instead of requiring a canopy course, having an instructor review Section 6-10 Canopy Flight and section 6-11 advanced with the potential licensee. This would allow an instructor to review wing loads, flight characteristics, and a sleuth of other topics for the particular license. Exactly like we require an instructor to go over water training for B, we can have an instructor review the canopy sections.

Requiring a canopy course opens a can of worms: What course is approved? Who is authorized to teach a course? Etc.

I really liked this idea but it is still a work in progress. My only point of concern was talking to a person with 50 jumps about advanced topics such as video and high performance landings. I thought it would be better suited at the 200 jump stage.
Your thoughts are highly encouraged and will be reviewed and brought to light.
This particular change is a very serious step in the right direction for Continuing Canopy Education.

The thought was that after an A license is earned we still need some continued canopy education.

Your thoughts on #3 are encouraged.

The responses will be read and considered I promise. This is exactly what members have complained about, not having input on future changes. So it is not a knee jerk reaction.

Rich Winstock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll give a shot on this topic with my personal experience as an instructor and the rules as we have them in the Netherlands.

For both our A and B-license we need to complete 5 jumps solely on Canopy Control (so 10 jumps in total). For our C-license we need to do 5 CRW-jumps. It sounds like this is more then is required in the USA.

Even with these 10-15 jumps I still think this isn't enough. We are flying bigger planes with more people in the sky. This means that canopyskills are becoming more important in these days. Why are we still basing our rules on the past where we only had small aircrafts which could transport only 4 jumpers. With todays jumpplanes there is need for a different set of rules regarding Canopy Control. For me Canopy Control is just as important maybe more important then freefall-skills.

Just my thought.
Blue skies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My personal thought was instead of requiring a canopy course, having an instructor review Section 6-10 Canopy Flight and section 6-11 advanced with the potential licensee.



That's a good idea, mostly so the jumper knows the information is out there and where to find it. But we require actually getting wet to "learn" water landing procedures, don't we? Teaching someone pattern management without observing them fly a pattern and then offering constructive advice is only doing half the job.

Having taken Scott Miller's course in the past and run a few canopy control courses using the outline in the SIM, I can say that having jumpers attend a canopy control course that requires them to go up and practice the things they learn DOES improve safety in the pattern and landing area.

Quote

Requiring a canopy course opens a can of worms: What course is approved? Who is authorized to teach a course?



What course is approved? How about the one in the SIM? Who can teach it? How about an AFFI, as recommended in the SIM. There's no need to reinvent the wheel here. The work has already been done.

The biggest issue I see with requiring a canopy control course is cost to the novice. Considering that some people are charging a couple hundred bucks for a day of basic canopy coaching (ie raping the noobs), that's a valid issue. But it's one that could be handled by encouraging instructors to keep the course cost close to what most people will happily spend on a day's jumping.

Still missing the one thing that will improve safety in every pattern and landing area though. USPA says that Joe Noob can't go kill himself with a wingsuit, but he can kill YOU under a Katana loaded at 1.6 and USPA has done nothing and continues to do nothing to keep that from happening. That logical disconnect is going to bite USPA one day, when some noob takes out someone in the landing area and the injured person decides to go against skydiving culture and sue the noob for the injuries and the DZ and USPA for negligence in allowing the noob to fly a parachute that is too much (little) for their experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That's a good idea, mostly so the jumper knows the information is out there and where to find it. But we require actually getting wet to "learn" water landing procedures, don't we?



We are on the same page here. Dont forget going over these sections is in addition to completing the proficiency card under the supervision of an instructor. So reviewing the two sections as well as complete the proficiency card with an instructor. That would cover the applicability of the discussions.

Quote

USPA has done nothing and continues to do nothing to keep that from happening. That logical disconnect is going to bite USPA one day



Ok, I am all about liability (USPA, DZ, STA, Instructor) but before we lynch USPA can I point out a few things. These recommendations came out of hours of sit down meetings in Reno and remember that :
"Earlier this year, USPA decided to gather industry experts for a Canopy Safety Summit (see page 23 for participants) and created a web page to solicit ideas and comments from all sources for consideration by the group."(Parachutist)

Jay Stokes (March 2011)
"So this year’s focus on canopy training, canopy separation and predictable landing patterns will be led by our S&TAs with the support and encouragement of your president and the board of directors"

USPA is all over this topic trust me on this one. One of the main reasons I ran for the BOD was I felt it was not fair to throw a stone while I sit back in my small corner of the world and do nothing about my perceived issues. USPA is giving the opportunity to all membership to get involved on this hot topic. Again, 70% of last years fatalities were canopy related. We know this and are doing our best to address it. That includes this thread, USPA canopy blog, the new suggestions listed above, the sleuth of canopy articles in the magazine, USPA professional, USPA updates. I am definately on the other side of the fence now and I see first hand the work going into this. Lets not forget USPA's staff and the effort being put in behind the scenes to address this important issue.

Lets not forget the mere fact we are begging for input on this one. Think about how great that is; it is we as a membership as opposed to them the BOD.

I am just putting some personal thoughts out there by the way I am not speaking for USPA, the BOD, or aany particular director. LOL Disclaimer..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My thoughts:

Quote

Canopy Safety Discussion

1. Revise the Integrated Student Program student progression to include five jumps that are dedicated solely to canopy-control training.
I like this, with the condition that they are observed (from the ground) - sort of a canopy coach jump.

2. Revise the accuracy landings requirements for licenses to include declaring intent before the jump, similar to the PRO rating requirements.
This is a great improvement and may address the "cheating" that happens now.

3. Require completion of a Canopy Progression Card for achieving a B license. Agree.
This should include a Pattern Planning part where the license candidate has to plan and explain a landing pattern to the instructor, and then fly the plan. Why? Because the pattern is where most collisions occur according to USPA data.

4. Require the completion of the Canopy Progression Card before every coach and instructor’s next rating renewal.
Perhaps some modification of this. The Canopy Proficiency Card includes "Full ram-air stall using toggles". This might not be appropriate for more experienced jumpers on elliptical/cross-braced canopies.

5. Change the license tests to include more questions on canopy control.
This is long overdue.

6. Change the Coach and Instructor Rating Courses to include more training and evaluation on teaching canopy control.
Agree 100%

7. Require each coach or instructor rating candidate to attend a canopy course geared toward teaching the candidates more about canopy control and how to teach canopy control. (This course has not been developed.)
Sounds like a great idea but practical implementation could be a challenge.

8. Develop methods to ensure that each drop zone is separating high-performance landings from other canopy traffic and ensuring that each jumper is flying an established landing pattern.
This is just an enforcement issue. The agreement is already there.


"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
Quote

The biggest issue I see with requiring a canopy control course is cost to the novice.



I understand your point but if there is a slight increase in costs (say $100 to get your A-licence) then I say let's do it. If it prevents even one fatality it will be money well spent.


Quote

Still missing the one thing that will improve safety in every pattern and landing area though. USPA says that Joe Noob can't go kill himself with a wingsuit, but he can kill YOU under a Katana loaded at 1.6 and USPA has done nothing and continues to do nothing to keep that from happening.



We need to be careful to address the facts here. The data do not back up the assertion that it is "noobs" that are causing all (or even most of) the canopy related incidents. From the USPA website's Accident Reports, I looked at all accidents classified as "Canopy Collision", "Low Turn" or "Landing Problem" and the jump numbers were:

Mean - 1540
Median - 884

I am not saying all is well, but just wanted to add some data to the discussion.

[Disclosure: I might be "that guy" you are talking about. I jump a Katana @ 1.5 but have taken multiple canopy courses and have DZO and S&TA approval.]
"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
Quote

http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/Safety/CanopySafetyDiscussion/tabid/495/Default.aspx

Quote

Canopy Safety Discussion

At the February Board meeting in Reno, Nevada, the Safety & Training Committee discussed many issues related to canopy control and canopy training. The goal was to come up with viable ways to help jumpers learn more about canopy flight and become better canopy pilots without instituting overly burdensome requirements. After looking through the many member suggestions from our website and meeting with canopy experts and other industry leaders, the Committee is proposing the following changes:

1. Revise the Integrated Student Program student progression to include five jumps that are dedicated solely to canopy-control training.
2. Revise the accuracy landings requirements for licenses to include declaring intent before the jump, similar to the PRO rating requirements.
3. Require completion of a Canopy Progression Card for achieving a B license.
4. Require the completion of the Canopy Progression Card before every coach and instructor’s next rating renewal.
5. Change the license tests to include more questions on canopy control.
6. Change the Coach and Instructor Rating Courses to include more training and evaluation on teaching canopy control.
7. Require each coach or instructor rating candidate to attend a canopy course geared toward teaching the candidates more about canopy control and how to teach canopy control. (This course has not been developed.)
8. Develop methods to ensure that each drop zone is separating high-performance landings from other canopy traffic and ensuring that each jumper is flying an established landing pattern.

These ideas have been posted to solicit additional feedback from USPA members. At the upcoming July board meeting, the committee will decide how to progress with the proposals. These ideas do not include the details of implementation. While some of the points are relatively straightforward, others will require a large amount of detailed planning for implementation.



I'm sure this will generate some ... um ... lively discussion here, but to make sure USPA hears your thoughts, comment on the link above as well.




My thoughts:

1. I don't know. I think it could help, but I don't think it will sink in for most people. I already feel that people's brains are reeling and trying to catch up with everything that they have learned. I think this is one of the reasons that people get into the dangerous category around 100 jumps. They feel as if they have finally caught up with the information that they learned getting their license, etc. Showing some structured continuing education will help in that regard.

2. I so long as there is no consecutive requirement, I think that this would be a great idea. Someone could just declare every jump though. What I don't think would be good is to encourage someone to go out and do something stupid to not break a streak.

3. I think a canopy proficiency card for a B license or higher is a great idea. I am glad to see that this was an adopted idea as it is one that I was saying before that we really should be promoting. This is continuing education. If you look around, many of the things in the world that are high risk / important to do right / ever changing environments, be it jobs or fun activities, some level of continuing education is required. This is at least a step in that direction. I also feel that at this point someone has had a bit of a breather from the overload of "learning to skydive" information.

4. I don't know that this is going to help. Honestly, the people handing out ratings really should be doing their job and ensuring that those entrusted to teach our students know what the hell they are talking about. I think it's a good idea for people to do this, but I don't think making it a rule is going to help. If a course director wants to do it as their way of being sure that a person knows what they are doing, then I think they should. Course directors should take responsibility for the people they are turning into instructors (and I think many do, but there are those that don't).

5. Just make it the test longer if anything, it's not going to hurt anyone to ask more questions.

6. I think that this could be a good idea. Honestly, we need people to have some sort of structure to things when it comes to teaching. I mean, everyone doesn't know everything. To be able to coach and teach about something, you should really have to either be taught how to teach it or somehow demonstrate that you know how. Coaches are supposed to be mentored by instructors are they not? I think that we need to get things more in line with that program. If the coaches worked more closely with a instructors after becoming coaches, they would be better at teaching these things to students.

7. I dunno on this one. I highly advocate attending a canopy course of some sort, but with nothing really developed, it's hard for me to get behind the idea. The main thing is that a candidate should really demonstrate that they are proficient in teaching these things or at least that they have an understanding of the topic at hand.

8. Dropzones should be doing this already. I am not going to argue for or against, but USPA really doesn't do a great job of ensuring "standards." Everyone is taken at their word. Maybe that should change, maybe it shouldn't, I don't really know where I stand.

Hope that this helps.
~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While this is a decent first proposal more things need to be addressed. 70% of our fatalities were under a good canopy. We need everyone to become an ACTIVE canopy pilot. Giving jumpers the tools to react when they discover themselves in a dangerous situation is one matter but teaching them to be an ACTIVE canopy pilot is another. Pattern management and active flying allows you not get stuck in a bad situation. There is damage control and preventive measures. Both sides need to be taught.

Avgjoe
Hook it for safety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The data do not back up the assertion that it is "noobs" that are causing all (or even most of) the canopy related incidents.



Agreed. Those who've been jumping ten, twenty, thirty years can also be "blamed" for recent incidents. I'd love to see a requirement that every skydiver take a canopy course that stresses pattern management (active canopy piloting) prior to their next membership/license renewal. With no exceptions. It would eliminate a lot of confusion in the pattern if everyone is on the same page as to what a pattern is and why it's important to fly one. Lots of us old farts simply refuse to learn anything new if we aren't forced to; we've been landing this way for 20 years and nothing bad ever happened...

Quote

I might be "that guy" you are talking about. I jump a Katana @ 1.5 but have taken multiple canopy courses and have DZO and S&TA approval.



Are you comfortable with sharing the pattern and landing area with someone with 100 -200 jumps flying a Katana/Crossfire class canopy at 1.5 poorly and refusing to listen to anybody? Someone who hasn't taken any canopy courses at all? There's one at every dropzone at some point or another. That's the person we need a BSR for.

Everybody has a right to pound themselves in under whatever parachute they'd like. Nobody has a right to pound you in other than you, though. Skydiver culture says that you don't sue other skydivers; accepting all risks means accepting all risks. Are you comfortable with the level of risk you are taking by being in the air with the person mentioned above? Would knowing that 100 jump wonder wouldn't be allowed to fly that parachute into you be enough to make you okay with waiting another 100 jumps (or whatever) to downsize or go more aggressive, even though you and the local canopy guru think you are ready now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My thoughts:

Quote


2. Revise the accuracy landings requirements for licenses to include declaring intent before the jump, similar to the PRO rating requirements.
This is a great improvement and may address the "cheating" that happens now.

Some personal experience here: I have around 250 jumps now, about 20 in Switzerland, the rest in the US. I am on C-License in the US and have completed accuracy landings without "cheating" under the current rule of "no need to declaring intention". I have completed all the requirements for the Swiss license last year but failed to complete my final practical exam (1st attempt) around jump nr 80. In Switzerland we only have ONE license. The completion of a challenging theoretical exam, two practical exams and 5-8 accuracy landings with declared intent are mandatory before the final exam. Which is: 2 accuracy landings within 25m (around 70ft) and a RW jump with an instructor. You have 2 attempts for these 3 stages, if you screw up one of them you have to repeat the whole practical final exam with all 3 stages. After the 3rd attempt it will get difficult to get your license.
My take away so far: Yes, this generates more effort for the DZ, school. And: It can cause a situation of "target fixation" and lead to students taking more risk to achieve the goal and master a potentially stressful situation. In my case I almost hurt myself to stay within 25 meters by doing a low turn on final. I do feel much more confident now with landing accuracy (no wonder, 210 jumps with the same canopy) and will take the final Swiss exam for the license as soon as weather and time permits. Both systems have their pros and cons. In the US I learnt a lot about avoiding canopy collisions by jumping with bigger loads and having plenty of space usually on the landing zone. And I can land within 40 feet of my personal target found before or during downwind leg in most of my jumps now. Switzerland seems to enforce the capability for landing accuracy with stronger methods based on the belief that a jumper needs to be capable for this sooner or later in his/her career anyway.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Dont forget going over these sections is in addition to completing the proficiency card under the supervision of an instructor. So reviewing the two sections as well as complete the proficiency card with an instructor.



The canopy proficiency card? If so, that's perfect; an even better choice than requiring a course be taken. Most items on the card can be checked off during a course run based on the one in the SIM; requiring the card be completed instead of requiring that a course be taken would accomplish the same thing - verifying a base level of knowledge/skill - without forcing those with geographical issues to travel to find a course.

I'll admit it. I'm impressed. That would work.

But I still really think a BSR limiting canopy choices merits at least a serious discussion. Give your instructors and S&TA's and DZO's and gear dealers something to point at that has some teeth when they try to tell "that guy" not to buy or fly that parachute. They have it to keep "that guy" out of a wingsuit and wingsuits haven't killed or injured nearly as many jumpers as fast parachutes in inexperienced hands have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Dont forget going over these sections is in addition to completing the proficiency card under the supervision of an instructor. So reviewing the two sections as well as complete the proficiency card with an instructor.



The canopy proficiency card? If so, that's perfect; an even better choice than requiring a course be taken. Most items on the card can be checked off during a course run based on the one in the SIM; requiring the card be completed instead of requiring that a course be taken would accomplish the same thing - verifying a base level of knowledge/skill - without forcing those with geographical issues to travel to find a course.

I'll admit it. I'm impressed. That would work.

But I still really think a BSR limiting canopy choices merits at least a serious discussion. Give your instructors and S&TA's and DZO's and gear dealers something to point at that has some teeth when they try to tell "that guy" not to buy or fly that parachute. They have it to keep "that guy" out of a wingsuit and wingsuits haven't killed or injured nearly as many jumpers as fast parachutes in inexperienced hands have.



The problem I have with more training or a BSR or whatever is simple.

How is it that we have jumpers out there that aren't afraid of this stuff in the first place, and will more regulation really replace a proper attitude of self-preservation?

With the last few years having a tremendous focus on how people are dying under their open canopies, how could anyone with an ounce of sense not already being taking steps to be sure that they are not a problem?

If people don't get that this is dangerous, are a few extra rules really going to fix it any?

Not that we shouldn't try, or course. But what do we really expect to accomplish? The result I see is that we will feel better about being as proactive as we can, while still having the problem continue. That's not an entirely bad result. But it isn't really what we're all thinking as fixing things, is it?

Consider - we have lots of laws about driving safely. Do they stop the tailgating? Speeding? Running traffic signs and signals? Nope! Those problems remain and are as bad as ever.

If someone believes that it won't happen to them, that they are invincible, rules and training are not going to change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How is it that we have jumpers out there that aren't afraid of this stuff in the first place, and will more regulation really replace a proper attitude of self-preservation?

With the last few years having a tremendous focus on how people are dying under their open canopies, how could anyone with an ounce of sense not already being taking steps to be sure that they are not a problem?

If people don't get that this is dangerous, are a few extra rules really going to fix it any?



I have a theory that I threw out on here a few years ago - that part of it is the fault of those of us who do get the risks - we tell people that one of the reasons to buy used gear for their first set of gear is that you will get bored by your first canopy within 100 jumps. We set the expectation that boredom with a conservative canopy is the norm, and that downsizing so they can have "more fun" is the norm.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'd love to see a requirement that every skydiver take a canopy course that stresses pattern management (active canopy piloting) prior to their next membership/license renewal. With no exceptions.



Me too! This is a danger from which nobody is immune. The difficulty (as you obviously know) is balancing what would be really effective, with what is actually practical to implement given that many people will not voluntarily cough up the cash for a canopy course.

I think the problem here is a mix of denial (it won't happen to me), ignorance (you don't know what you don't know) and either complacency (I've got 2,000 jumps and nothing ever happens to me) or arrogance (I am a great canopy pilot - what do I need more training for?)

Quote

Are you comfortable with sharing the pattern and landing area with someone with 100 -200 jumps flying a Katana/Crossfire class canopy at 1.5 poorly and refusing to listen to anybody? Someone who hasn't taken any canopy courses at all? There's one at every dropzone at some point or another. That's the person we need a BSR for.



Hell no! I am not happy sharing the pattern with anyone who flies their canopy poorly and unpredictably and refuses to listen to anybody else, regardless of their jump numbers. In fact we have a group of senior jumpers at my DZ who I just will not be in the air with because of the fucking chaos in the pattern.

I am not sure if the following questions were rhetorical, but I'll answer anyway:

Quote

Are you comfortable with the level of risk you are taking by being in the air with the person mentioned above?
- No, I am not.

Would knowing that 100 jump wonder wouldn't be allowed to fly that parachute into you be enough to make you okay with waiting another 100 jumps (or whatever) to downsize or go more aggressive, even though you and the local canopy guru think you are ready now?
- Honestly, I would be frustrated if that were mandated, but if it saves lives then what's a bit of frustration...?


"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
Sky,
Thanks for the response.

Quote

But I still really think a BSR limiting canopy choices merits at least a serious discussion. Give your instructors and S&TA's and DZO's and gear dealers something to point at that has some teeth when they try to tell "that guy" not to buy or fly that parachute.



Keep in mind a DZO or S&TA or Chief Instructor has the right to ground anyone they feel is that guy for any reason. There is no BSR requirred. An S&TA has the authority to also suspend a instructional rating for up to 30 days under the governance manual 1-6.6b1.
The funny thing about "that guy" which by the way I love for a national campaign on canopy safety. Are you that Guy? would be a great way to really get people thinking about this. Especially if we tell them they are that guy or girl and let them prove otherwise.


Rigger Paul,
Even if I agree with what you say, I agree most with,"Not that we shouldn't try, or course. But what do we really expect to accomplish?"
We cant just throw our hands up and say why try because it will not accomplish anything. The goal is to offer as much education from inception on through continuing canopy . or better put, It sure as hell cant hurt.
I often say those in a canopy seminar are not the ones I am worried about, it is the ones who think they dont need it that worry me.

Back to the proficiency card and section 6-10 and 6-11: if we require it prior to a license (B or C) then we are forcing That Guy to sit down and listen to us. It is giving the instructors another chance to educate and hopefully reach that guy. As it is now that guy gets his A and doesnt have to really do anything.
We are dropping the ball. I am a strong advocate of this one proposal:
What I have done in the past is go over those sections at water training. Do you know why? Because they have to be there and they have to listen to me. It works, or at least helps. Dont give up the fight I see the frustration, believe me I still crack up at the you tube Teach me to swoop animations. Usually when there is a joke we laugh at there is some truth behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sky,
Thanks for the response.

Quote

But I still really think a BSR limiting canopy choices merits at least a serious discussion. Give your instructors and S&TA's and DZO's and gear dealers something to point at that has some teeth when they try to tell "that guy" not to buy or fly that parachute.



Keep in mind a DZO or S&TA or Chief Instructor has the right to ground anyone they feel is that guy for any reason. There is no BSR requirred. An S&TA has the authority to also suspend a instructional rating for up to 30 days under the governance manual 1-6.6b1.
The funny thing about "that guy" which by the way I love for a national campaign on canopy safety. Are you that Guy? would be a great way to really get people thinking about this. Especially if we tell them they are that guy or girl and let them prove otherwise.


Rigger Paul,
Even if I agree with what you say, I agree most with,"Not that we shouldn't try, or course. But what do we really expect to accomplish?"
We cant just throw our hands up and say why try because it will not accomplish anything. The goal is to offer as much education from inception on through continuing canopy . or better put, It sure as hell cant hurt.
I often say those in a canopy seminar are not the ones I am worried about, it is the ones who think they dont need it that worry me.

Back to the proficiency card and section 6-10 and 6-11: if we require it prior to a license (B or C) then we are forcing That Guy to sit down and listen to us. It is giving the instructors another chance to educate and hopefully reach that guy. As it is now that guy gets his A and doesnt have to really do anything.
We are dropping the ball. I am a strong advocate of this one proposal:
What I have done in the past is go over those sections at water training. Do you know why? Because they have to be there and they have to listen to me. It works, or at least helps. Dont give up the fight I see the frustration, believe me I still crack up at the you tube Teach me to swoop animations. Usually when there is a joke we laugh at there is some truth behind it.



Thanks Rich. After your encouragement, I'll post my suggestion for action to take in response to seeing poor canopy discipline.

Some people have discussed grounding, but I don't think that is a good direction to take.

I propose that we restrict the person to solo jumps, maybe hop-n-pops, for a number of jumps after we see a serious problem.

The important point is that we separate the person from others that he put in danger.

Taking away the ability to jump with others keeps him jumping, and gives him a motivation to improve.

So, to recap, I believe that the facilities are already available to solve the problem. We have the training. We have the rules we need.

What we are lacking is a workable response that encourages improved behavior.

I suggest that putting him back to solo jumping for a while will get that done.

It doesn't even matter that he might be able to go elsewhere to circumvent the restriction. The safety problems such a person presents do not go away when he leaves. And even if they did, that would be fine, wouldn't it? But when he does the same thing elsewhere, and gets the same solo restriction, the problem will quickly resolve itself. He will either fix his behavior, or he'll quit the sport in disgust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It doesn't even matter that he might be able to go elsewhere to circumvent the restriction.



I dont want to spin off topic but this has been a point of contention for me for sometime now. I think that there should be some sort of S&TA community or Blog, or group email that we can diseminate information to all S&TA's from all DZ's. Very similar to UPT, Strong, and USPA having a reciprosity (sp) for various suspensions; Why cant all DZ's honor diciplinary action or grounding from other DZ's?

I have had the younger jumper tell me that he will just go jump at xy dropzone. Luckily in the north east we all know each other fairly well so all it takes is a call.

There really should be an online community of just S&TA's so we can share experiences and learn from each other. Not to mention ask for advice if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It doesn't even matter that he might be able to go elsewhere to circumvent the restriction.



I dont want to spin off topic but this has been a point of contention for me for sometime now. I think that there should be some sort of S&TA community or Blog, or group email that we can diseminate information to all S&TA's from all DZ's. Very similar to UPT, Strong, and USPA having a reciprosity (sp) for various suspensions; Why cant all DZ's honor diciplinary action or grounding from other DZ's?

I have had the younger jumper tell me that he will just go jump at xy dropzone. Luckily in the north east we all know each other fairly well so all it takes is a call.

There really should be an online community of just S&TA's so we can share experiences and learn from each other. Not to mention ask for advice if needed.



Sure, it sounds nice to have the community of which you speak.

But, even without it, if the dropzones really commit to making people jump solo when they make problems, the matter will take care of itself. And, as I said, if he fixes his behavior so he doesn't get "solo'd" elsewhere, that's fine too. He still took steps to not do whatever he did to get the restriction.

Besides, your S&TA community thing presupposes many things. I have to be watching the community for the information. I have to be aware of the jumper arriving at our dz. If I miss a weekend, the process can break down.

If the local community is tightly knit enough that he has friends at the other place too, then it should be tightly knit enough for them to have heard about the problem. If his friends aren't at the other dz, he's still missing his friends and will want to get "back home", or he will be an outsider for a time at the other dz.

All in all, he is still significantly inconvenienced for his mistake.

Now, if the jumpers over there have no problem jumping with him, despite his problem, then we are right back at the starting place, with people not taking the danger seriously. If he does the same thing again, and nothing happens, again, we are back at the start as well.

Don't put this on the S&TAs. Put it on the whole jumping community. If they don't take it seriously, there is nothing the S&TAs can do, and the community will have only itself to thank for the carnage.

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