USPA Seeking Feedback on Canopy Safety Proposals

[Divalent 89]

Quote

Quote

Canopy Safety Discussion
2. Revise the accuracy landings requirements for licenses to include declaring intent before the jump, similar to the PRO rating requirements.

I'm a student in my solo phase, and in the process of accumulating "target landings", I'd like to offer my thoughts on this.

I have been picking tragets before hand, although in one case I had to modify it on my downwind leg because 2 people had landed near it and I couldn't be sure they would be gone by the time I was on final. So I think any declared intent should requirement should have a safety exception. (Obviously there would be no way to communicate a change to an instructor at the last moment, but the current regs don't require announcing it in advance anyway).

More importantly, IMO, is that in light of the possible contributing factor of target fixation in the recent dual student deaths in Texas, it seems to me that an additional requirement for a target landing is that the whole landing pattern be completed with some sort of minumum separation from other traffic. IOW, you don't get a "20M target landing" if you were dead on, but came within some distance (50M? I'll let the experts pick a safe distance) of other canopies anytime when in the landing pattern (1000ft and below). This additional requirement will force students to pay some attention to other traffic, and will preclude someone (knowingly or unknowingly) creating an unsafe situation in a desparate attempt to bag a proficiency card item.

(And perhaps a target landing could be awarded if it exceeded the 20M distance due to presence of traffic. IOW, if safety requires a landing 30M left to avoid another jumper, give them the landing if they landed within 20M of a target that is 30M to the left of the original target.)

Students tend to be more likely to create low level canopy collisions (outside of the swooping area), and other than general safety requirements, the A-license card doesn't have a specific item related to landing pattern separation. (Perhaps reword the 25 jump requirement to something like: "25 jumps maintaining a minumum 100M (50M?) separation from all other canopies from deployment to landing." So if you create (knowingly or unknowingly) a dangerous situation, that jump don't count.)

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Canopy Safety Discussion
2. Revise the accuracy landings requirements for licenses to include declaring intent before the jump, similar to the PRO rating requirements.

I'm a student in my solo phase, and in the process of accumulating "target landings", I'd like to offer my thoughts on this.

I have been picking tragets before hand, although in one case I had to modify it on my downwind leg because 2 people had landed near it and I couldn't be sure they would be gone by the time I was on final. So I think any declared intent should requirement should have a safety exception. (Obviously there would be no way to communicate a change to an instructor at the last moment, but the current regs don't require announcing it in advance anyway).

More importantly, IMO, is that in light of the possible contributing factor of target fixation in the recent dual student deaths in Texas, it seems to me that an additional requirement for a target landing is that the whole landing pattern be completed with some sort of minumum separation from other traffic. IOW, you don't get a "20M target landing" if you were dead on, but came within some distance (50M? I'll let the experts pick a safe distance) of other canopies anytime when in the landing pattern (1000ft and below). This additional requirement will force students to pay some attention to other traffic, and will preclude someone (knowingly or unknowingly) creating an unsafe situation in a desparate attempt to bag a proficiency card item.

(And perhaps a target landing could be awarded if it exceeded the 20M distance due to presence of traffic. IOW, if safety requires a landing 30M left to avoid another jumper, give them the landing if they landed within 20M of a target that is 30M to the left of the original target.)

Students tend to be more likely to create low level canopy collisions (outside of the swooping area), and other than general safety requirements, the A-license card doesn't have a specific item related to landing pattern separation. (Perhaps reword the 25 jump requirement to something like: "25 jumps maintaining a minumum 100M (50M?) separation from all other canopies from deployment to landing." So if you create (knowingly or unknowingly) a dangerous situation, that jump don't count.)

Is there some reason that you care that you take an extra jump or two to meet the license requirement? After all, you plan to be doing this forever, right?

Personally, I don't see any real value to declaring the target intention. You should be intending to land on the target every time. Traffic in the sky with you is just something you have to deal with. If it prevents you from landing on the target this time, then you failed to work with the situation. If the situation really really made it impossible, and it wasn't your failure to plan, then there's always your next jump.

Forget the licenses. Learn how to skydive. The licenses will come when they come.

If as a student you are experiencing "license fixation", that's a problem in its own right.

In formation skydiving there is a saying, "Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast".

There's really no wisdom in hurrying to your accident. Slow down, do every jump as best you can.

Don't fixate on anything but safety. The rest comes in its own good time.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

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.

True. But in the real world, the DZO needs bodies filling the aircraft so the S&TA who just grounded "that guy" is overruled. After all, it's not like the person violated a BSR. He's not breaking any rules, he's just enjoying his freedom to do whatever he wants in the air.

The wingsuit BSR gives the S&TA something concrete to point at when they have to tell someone no, you can't jump a wingsuit yet. It also gives them something concrete to point at when they have to justify that restriction to the DZO.

A BSR limiting canopy size/type/wingloading based on jump numbers would give S&TA's the same tool to use when they have to say no, you can't jump that canopy yet.

It makes no sense to give them a tool to keep someone from going in with a wingsuit and not give them a tool to keep someone from taking out someone else with a canopy they can't safely fly in traffic.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

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.

True. But in the real world, the DZO needs bodies filling the aircraft so the S&TA who just grounded "that guy" is overruled. After all, it's not like the person violated a BSR. He's not breaking any rules, he's just enjoying his freedom to do whatever he wants in the air.

The wingsuit BSR gives the S&TA something concrete to point at when they have to tell someone no, you can't jump a wingsuit yet. It also gives them something concrete to point at when they have to justify that restriction to the DZO.

A BSR limiting canopy size/type/wingloading based on jump numbers would give S&TA's the same tool to use when they have to say no, you can't jump that canopy yet.

It makes no sense to give them a tool to keep someone from going in with a wingsuit and not give them a tool to keep someone from taking out someone else with a canopy they can't safely fly in traffic.

So let the person make solo jumps. Make him land far from the main landing area.

The DZO still gets the jump ticket, and we don't need any new rules.

[DocPop 1]

Quote

It makes no sense to give them a tool to keep someone from going in with a wingsuit and not give them a tool to keep someone from taking out someone else with a canopy they can't safely fly in traffic.

This is a great point because the guy who goes in flying a wingsuit probably dies alone, but "that guy" who is not competent to fly a canopy in the pattern is a risk to others as well as himself.

Your comment on the S&TA being overruled by the DZO is quite concerning. I have not seen this in my limited time in the sport, but this means the enforcement system is broken and it needs to be addressed. It seems to me that without addressing the enforcement system, any changes to the BSRs or license requirements will continue to be pencil-whipped.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[Divalent 89]

Quote

Is there some reason that you care that you take an extra jump or two to meet the license requirement? After all, you plan to be doing this forever, right?

I think we are kind of on the same page. I don't fear having to take more than 25 jumps. And since you only need 5 target landings, you get plenty of opportunities after level 7 to meet it. Really, if you plan on a targeted landed for all 18 of your post-level-7 jumps, there are plenty of opportunities (13 of them!) you can pass on due to safety reasons and still meet the requirements. It seems (from my perspective as a student, and as a person who wants to be as reasonably safe as possible) that an approach and landing should first be safe, then be accurate.

I don't know that actual reasons for the target accuracy requirement, but it seems to me that two purposes are 1) to prepare the student for the situation where they have to land off the DZ in a very tight spot, and 2) to give the student experience doing minor approach adjustments (flat turns, braked turns, flare turns) to get experience manuvering to adjust their flight path and to avoid obstacles close to their landing area. So my suggestion to put in some sort of separation requirement for all landings (or maybe 24 of 25, or 20 of 25 or something), and in particular to make it a absolute requirement to have it count as a "targeted landing" is just an attempt to add something that will keep us students mindful of a more important skill. (Again, the two recent student fatalities in Texas might not have occurred if just one of them was mindful of separation and acted accordingly.)

Quote

Personally, I don't see any real value to declaring the target intention. You should be intending to land on the target every time.

That might work at some DZs (and if so, that seems equivalent to declaring a target before hand), but my DZ does not have a specific target. And the landing area is huge, about a 1/2 mile E-W (the main landing direction), so to be realistic and force me to set up my approach properly, I have to pick some spot before hand (and recently I've been mentally "foresting over" a lot of the excess area to try to simulate a tigher spot).

Quote

Forget the licenses. Learn how to skydive. The licenses will come when they come. If as a student you are experiencing "license fixation", that's a problem in its own right.

Agree and Agree. And I think, for me, (I hope!), it's not an issue. But if you search the fatality database, student collisions near the ground where target fixation might have been a factor is common enough that this advice alone is unlikely to solve things. So one way to help might be to add an element to the requirement that forces the student to maintain proper separation. (and so if they find themselves too close at 300ft, they know they won't get their "target" item on this jump even if they land spot on, and so won't make the situation even worse trying to force their way in).

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

Personally, I don't see any real value to declaring the target intention. You should be intending to land on the target every time.

That might work at some DZs (and if so, that seems equivalent to declaring a target before hand), but my DZ does not have a specific target. And the landing area is huge, about a 1/2 mile E-W (the main landing direction), so to be realistic and force me to set up my approach properly, I have to pick some spot before hand (and recently I've been mentally "foresting over" a lot of the excess area to try to simulate a tigher spot).

Set your own target. Get a traffic cone and put it where you like. Tell an instructor or your S&TA that this is your target. When you land sufficiently close, and someone sees it, you get your requirement filled. If "declaring" the jump is the method to get someone to watch, then fine, declare it.

Quote

Quote

Forget the licenses. Learn how to skydive. The licenses will come when they come. If as a student you are experiencing "license fixation", that's a problem in its own right.

Agree and Agree. And I think, for me, (I hope!), it's not an issue. But if you search the fatality database, student collisions near the ground where target fixation might have been a factor is common enough that this advice alone is unlikely to solve things. So one way to help might be to add an element to the requirement that forces the student to maintain proper separation. (and so if they find themselves too close at 300ft, they know they won't get their "target" item on this jump even if they land spot on, and so won't make the situation even worse trying to force their way in).

Please explain to me why we need to force the student to do anything.

I am not a cop. I am an ADVISOR.

If the student does not understand that he should not hit things and people, how is a rule going to improve the simple fact that he doesn't get it?

At that point, the rule serves only to alienate the new jumper.

Looking at all the threads about cameras and wingsuits and other advanced disciplines, you quickly see that there are lots and lots of people who think that all the rules are for someone else. Making a new rule is not going to change that person.

Self preservation is a personal thing. If you have a sense of it, great. If you don't, I cannot force you to have it.

It seems that you have at least some of it. I get it that you'd like others to have it too. But rules are not the way. You don't seem to actually need the rule, and the person who doesn't get it feels that the rule is not for him. So that new rule won't actually help keep you any safer.

About the only thing that will get the job done is peer pressure.

This is why I say that the proper teaching aid is restriction to solo skydiving.

Enough of that and either they improve, or they get bored and leave.

Either way, I'm fine with that.

You know what? We don't even need a formal system to restrict that person.

If you and your friends refuse to jump with him, he'll be solo, and no rule was involved.

You want to make things safer, take it on yourself to not let people put you in danger. Get your friends to do the same.

The problem is not that we don't have enough rules.

What we are lacking is people who will just say "not with me around, you don't!".

[Ron 7]

Quote

If it prevents even one fatality it will be money well spent.

The most dangerous thing ever said. Would you be ok with mandatory AAD usage? Mandatory WL restrictions?

Remember, if it saves just ONE life it would be worth it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

1. Revise the Integrated Student Program student progression to include five jumps that are dedicated solely to canopy-control training.

Been saying this for a number of years. If the canopy ride is what is the growing danger in the sport then it is not too much to ask the student to spend some time under canopy focusing only on the canopy.

Yes, the ISP has canopy stuff in it. But it is damn near next to impossible for the instructor to observe all the maneuvers.

Quote

2. Revise the accuracy landings requirements for licenses to include declaring intent before the jump, similar to the PRO rating requirements.

Eh.... For the A and B I don't see the point. C and D sure. But, I don't want a young jumper killing himself trying to land "X" from a target. I have have seen quite a few 1k+ jumpers bash themselves trying to land near a target.

Quote

3. Require completion of a Canopy Progression Card for achieving a B license.

Great, add some freefall skills as well, and make the A and B (and hell make a C and D) all have proficiency cards.

Quote

4. Require the completion of the Canopy Progression Card before every coach and instructor’s next rating renewal.

Stupid. If they are dangerous, have the S&TA not sign the renewal.

Quote

5. Change the license tests to include more questions on canopy control.

Neutral.

Quote

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

Good.

Quote

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.)

Just make it part of the training program.

Quote

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.

Well, not a single person thinks it is a good idea to act like a jackass.... the problem is we do not ground people that act like a jackass.

Rules that can be ignored without repercussion are worthless.

Make it so an S&TA can ground a jumper and that grounding HAS to be respected at any GM DZ.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Quote

If it prevents even one fatality it will be money well spent.

The most dangerous thing ever said.

WTF? How is that dangerous to say? Are you saying that someone's life is NOT worth a $100 canopy course?

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but frankly to state that what I said is dangerous to anything other than your bank balance is preposterous.

Quote

Would you be ok with mandatory AAD usage? Mandatory WL restrictions?

Where is the line? Are you OK with a reserve parachute being mandatory? Personally I would be OK with mandatory AAD usage, and many DZs agree with that.

Quote

Remember, if it saves just ONE life it would be worth it.

So now you are agreeing with my original statement that you challenged. Maybe I misunderstood the tone/meaning of your post but you seem to have contradicted yourself.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[nigel99 144]

I am not going to comment on USPA procedures. But having just got current I had absolutely first class feedback from all the instructors on canopy control (special thanks to Andy though).

After each jump Andy took the time to walk me through my pattern, mistakes, traffic etc. If people had this kind of detailed feedback on every jump for 5 or 10 jumps it would be fantastic.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[redramdriver 0]

Krisanne, I couldn't agree with you more. That line of thinking gets posted over and over more often then we think, and yes, on here.

One of the reasons isn't just that we would love to have the noob in bigger gear, which is safer, more forgiving etc, is because experienced jumpers want to sell their used gear so "THEY" can buy new gear!!!! Thats not a new concept by any means.

I, as well as others hear this all the time (funny isn't that a insurance line), no you don't need new gear...there is so much used gear around thats what you should be buying. I say, if the new jumper has the coin, buy NEW!!! The gear dealers will love ya, you will eventually downsize or quit all together anyways.

And, this isn't directed at you or anyone else specifically, but why the hell is everyone beating to death the person wanting a B or a C license??? I know a big handful of people who have a D, that I will pass on a load just because they scare the living shit out of me.

I say each level of licenses needs to be more proficient then their last level. Makes sense to me. Each level has to be able to demonstrate an "advance" level of skills. Period. Do we make this retroactive so all people that are currently licensed at a C or a D have to go and have a Proficiency Card filled out before they can renew their USPA membership? I think that is gonna go over like farting in the plane. And therefore I think we need to carefully watch and monitor ourselves before we attempt to start raising the bar for those who have less jumps or lower license levels.

So, you bring your beer?

Its 5 o'clock somewhere
POPS #9344

[Ron 7]

Quote

WTF? How is that dangerous to say?

Because people will use those same words to legislate every bit of freedom from you claiming if "it saves on life it will be worth it". Tell ya what, if we ban skydiving it will save 20-30 lives a year.... Still seem like a smart concept or have you finally realized how stupid it is?

Quote

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but frankly to state that what I said is dangerous to anything other than your bank balance is preposterous.

Nope you clearly do not have a clue.

Quote

Where is the line? Are you OK with a reserve parachute being mandatory? Personally I would be OK with mandatory AAD usage, and many DZs agree with that.

Careful drawing lines.... Or you might find that 99% of the people will draw a line that pits limits on your choices. You are ok with mandatory AADs.... Well they are ok with mandatory jump mins to fly a Katana.

Quote

So now you are agreeing with my original statement that you challenged. Maybe I misunderstood the tone/meaning of your post but you seem to have contradicted yourself.

Nope, you still don't get it

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I am not going to comment on USPA procedures. But having just got current I had absolutely first class feedback from all the instructors on canopy control (special thanks to Andy though).

After each jump Andy took the time to walk me through my pattern, mistakes, traffic etc. If people had this kind of detailed feedback on every jump for 5 or 10 jumps it would be fantastic.

You are too kind, Nigel.
It was MY pleasure to talk with someone who is willing and eager to learn.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

So my suggestion to put in some sort of separation requirement for all landings

At this DZ you have 55 acres to land. I have suggested to you to make your accuracy landings in the alternate area away from the bulk of the traffic in the main area.

Separation happens long before entering the landing pattern. Maybe a line-item sign-off to demonstrate separation as a goal in and of itself...not tied to accuracy?

Quote

my DZ does not have a specific target.

Maybe you forgot:
In the main area
-the yellow, cloth arrow on the ground
-the two large dirt areas
-the imaginary line from the flag (and other markers) to the road
In the alternate area
-the noodles

And maybe your forgot about me telling you to put down your own target such as a towel.

Quote

so to be realistic and force me to set up my approach properly, I have to pick some spot before hand

...just as was suggested at the DZ, by me - pick a target before getting on the plane.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

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

***Canopy Safety Discussion

4. Require the completion of the Canopy Progression Card before every coach and instructor’s next rating renewal.
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.)

I am just a newbie, so I am open to correction on any of this but my understand is that coaches are not allowed to sign off on or instruct on the canopy portions of student training jumps. The only logical reason to require canopy course for coaches would be so they could instruct students better but this is not an area they are allowed to instruct in.

I think it makes more sense to tie any move towards greater canopy coaching to a license, not a coach rating. Unless they are going to change the whole structure and privledges of coaches regarding canopy flight.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[nigel99 144]

Quote

Quote

So my suggestion to put in some sort of separation requirement for all landings

At this DZ you have 55 acres to land. I have suggested to you to make your accuracy landings in the alternate area away from the bulk of the traffic in the main area.

Separation happens long before entering the landing pattern. Maybe a line-item sign-off to demonstrate separation as a goal in and of itself...not tied to accuracy?

Quote

my DZ does not have a specific target.

Maybe you forgot:
In the main area
-the yellow, cloth arrow on the ground
-the two large dirt areas
-the imaginary line from the flag (and other markers) to the road
In the alternate area
-the noodles

And maybe your forgot about me telling you to put down your own target such as a towel.

Quote

so to be realistic and force me to set up my approach properly, I have to pick some spot before hand

...just as was suggested at the DZ, by me - pick a target before getting on the plane.

Is he the guy who picked the tree for his target?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[DanG 1]

You're right, the Coach is not supposed to teach the canopy control portion of the higher categories. However, the Coach observes the student's pattern and landing during the Coach jumps, and is probably the one who debriefs the student on their canopy work during those levels. I think the Coach Course should definitely focus more on teaching canopy control.

- Dan G

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

Quote

I am just a newbie, so I am open to correction on any of this but my understand is that coaches are not allowed to sign off on or instruct on the canopy portions of student training jumps. The only logical reason to require canopy course for coaches would be so they could instruct students better but this is not an area they are allowed to instruct in.

I think it makes more sense to tie any move towards greater canopy coaching to a license, not a coach rating. Unless they are going to change the whole structure and privledges of coaches regarding canopy flight.

The role of the coach in canopy instruction / evaluation is an area where the USPA policy needs to come into alignment with the practice. I suspect that many/most coaches find themselves briefing and debiefing the canopy portion of their students' jumps. When I was a coach, I know that I briefed and debriefed the canopy flight as much as the freefall. USPA may not endorse that behavior... but it is how life works at my DZ.

It is not very practical for the coach to brief and debrief one phase of a jump, but have someone else brief and debrief another phase. Preparing the coaches better will absolutely better prepare them for the reality of the coaching task.

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[Ron 7]

I'd like to see people learn to fly a landing stack....

Demo teams are able to land 20 people (most I ever did was 18) on a one foot target and not a single collision happened.

We did this by deciding BEFORE we got on the plane who should land in what order. We decided this based on wingload and pull altitude.

Basically, if you have a high WL... Don't try to land last, and if you have a low WL don't try to land first.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Fast 0]

Quote

I'd like to see people learn to fly a landing stack....

Demo teams are able to land 20 people (most I ever did was 18) on a one foot target and not a single collision happened.

We did this by deciding BEFORE we got on the plane who should land in what order. We decided this based on wingload and pull altitude.

Basically, if you have a high WL... Don't try to land last, and if you have a low WL don't try to land first.

Yeah. This is something that we have been working to get people thinking about at my dz. The thing that I find is that most people treat canopy flight in very different ways and it leads to problems.

The problem comes in with the people who aren't thinking about things that happen before the pattern. They just want to screw around and have fun under canopy, which I understand, but you can only do that up to the point where it causes problems later. The actions you take after opening will directly affect your options when it comes time to fly a pattern.

I don't know why that is a hard concept for people to grasp but I see it at a lot of dropzones that I have been at, including my own.

~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

[danornan 64]

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:

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.

If #8 is ENFORCED and followed by all, including the sky gods, the number of deaths will drop. Don't swoop in the pattern. Be predictable. Airplanes MUST follow a pattern. Why can't skydivers?

Dano

[skymama 35]

Quote

If #8 is ENFORCED and followed by all, including the sky gods, the number of deaths will drop. Don't swoop in the pattern. Be predictable. Airplanes MUST follow a pattern. Why can't skydivers?

While changing the licensing program to reflect more canopy control is definitely overdue, I think #8 needs to be addressed as a top priority with consequences for the people who decide to swoop in the pattern. Does any dz actively take away privledges to jumpers who won't adhere to the rules? I've been to dz's before where staff members are the worst offenders!

Does anyone know if statistics are available as to how many canopy collision incidents were caused by people swooping in the pattern?

She is Da Man, and you better not mess with Da Man,
because she will lay some keepdown on you faster than, well, really fast. ~Billvon

[Nutz 0]

We have a seperate landing area but if you are staff - My defenses are, go somewhere else, (bigger, riskier dz) don't get on the load with them or pull high and let them get in front of me in the supposed pattern.

"Don't! Get! Eliminated!"

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Quote

If #8 is ENFORCED and followed by all, including the sky gods, the number of deaths will drop. Don't swoop in the pattern. Be predictable. Airplanes MUST follow a pattern. Why can't skydivers?

While changing the licensing program to reflect more canopy control is definitely overdue, I think #8 needs to be addressed as a top priority with consequences for the people who decide to swoop in the pattern. Does any dz actively take away privledges to jumpers who won't adhere to the rules? I've been to dz's before where staff members are the worst offenders!

Does anyone know if statistics are available as to how many canopy collision incidents were caused by people swooping in the pattern?

Andrea, I did some analysis years ago (about 3) of all documented worldwide collisions/fatalities. Of them, OVER 50% were NON-swoopers.

If people focus on swooping in the pattern, they're missing the bigger picture of the problem. We as recently as a month ago saw 2 students collide.

Now, Im not arguing that people swooping in the 'normal' pattern isn't a problem - it is, and shouldnt be done. But it's no-where near to the entire problem.

I travel a lot, visiting lots of dz's throughout the country. I have to say, I see more close calls entirely unrelated to swooping and generally related to people having their heads firmly planted up their ass and oblivious to everything around them.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team