USPA and the canopy issue

[DocPop 1]

We should be talking about enforcement, that is where the weakness is.

Every dropzone should be taking its own responsibility, regardless of whether or not the USPA mandates something or not.

The fact is, when avoidable accidents happen, the S&TA system is failing.

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

~ CanuckInUSA

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Why are people waiting for USPA to "do something?"

Because if I stand up and say that every A license candidate needs to attend a basic canopy control course, and here is the syllabus for that course; nobody is going to listen, and nothing will be accomplished.

If the USPA stands up and says that every A license candidate needs to attend a basic canopy control course, and here is the syllabus for that course, everyone is going to listen, and every A licesne candidate will attend a basic canopy control course.

I'll expand that last statement a bit - every A license candidate will attend a basic canopy control course before being awarded the A license, and set free to jump along side you and I with little or no supervision.

[MrDree 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I must respectfully point out that your addition to this discussion defies the laws of physics.

Force = mass x acceleration -- or to say it in English, if you land twice as fast, you hit four times as hard (more or less).

Yours too...

I'm just curious. Based on that formula, can you explain why the impact is four times harder when speed is doubled?

F = m * a

Quote

Where does that come from?

God.

Quote

Where is speed in your equation?

F = m * a

Acceleration is not speed. That's physics 101.

Quote

Quote

The right formula for kinetic energy is E = 0.5 * mass * speed^2

Actually, it's KE = 0.5 * m * v^2, but you're talking flying apples and splattered oranges.

That's exactly what I wrote (writing conventions aside). Thank you.

Quote

Kinetic energy is a calculation of potential force before a body in motion "comes to rest."

Force is a calculation of how hard a body in motion hits when it does come to rest.

Or to say it again in English:

If you land twice as fast, you hit four times as hard.

Okay, that's what I thought... Or to say it in English: you are unable to explain why you hit four times as hard. So I'll explain it to you.

Kinetic energy is the energy you have when you move. When you don't move, your kinetic energy is 0. So, when an object hits the ground, its kinetic energy drops suddenly to 0. That is because the kinetic energy it contained was liberated in the form of a sudden strong pressure on the object, a crater in the ground, some heat, some noise and maybe some broken bones.
Now, you're right about one thing: when the speed is doubled, the impact is four times harder. But obviously you don't really understand why.
Why is the impact four times harder? Because in the equation:
E = 0.5 * m * v^2
v is squared. So, when v is 2 times larger, E is 4 times larger. When v is 3 times larger, E is 9 times larger, etc...

Furthermore, there's a fundamental thing you don't seem to get: F = m*a describes a force, and E = 0.5*m*v^2 describes an enregy. Force and energy are two different things. Once again, that's physics 101.

Quote

F = m * a can be a little tricky, because the "a" is for acceleration, which is sorta like speed, but sorta not.

Wow, now that is real physics...

Seriously, you should take a refresher course in physics, because you seem to lack the basics. And please stop trying to teach it to others. You're really not helping them.

"One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching."

Dudeist Skydiver #101

[DaVincisEnvy 0]

Quote

What do you think is missing in the AFF course (assuming that much of the canopy control stuff is taught on the later Categories (Levels) when a student is not so overloaded from the freefall part?

Simply missing things that are not in a "canopy course"?
Missing the repetition and review?

I'm not sure the problem is with the instructed portion of AFF or early coached jumps. Students really do tend to be overloaded at that point and far more focused on freefall. They're also either still under radio or recently off radio. It wasn't until I'd been off radio for several jumps and had to plan and implement my own landing pattern un-aided that I began to realize just how much I didn't know about canopy work and just how important it would be to learn as much as possible.

Honestly, the most valuable portions of the canopy control course for me were the (more) in-depth discussions of the aerodynamics of canopy flight, the most common applications of specific canopy skills/maneuvers, the dedication of the hop n' pop jumps to canopy work only, and the de-brief after every jump.

During the FJC and instructed portion of AFF, the basics of canopy flight were covered (e.g. standard landing pattern, flare height, flying in breaks, and how to steer with toggles and risers). However, the focus was almost entirely on how to do an A-card skill, not why that skill/technique works (why, aerodynamically, a specific input produces a specific result), or when to use it. And knowing when to use a skill early-on usually comes from discussing common applications, as well as by learning the basic aerodynamic theory so that students can properly apply those skills to not-so-common situations.

I'm not advocating for or against the ISP here, just relating my personal experience. And my experience was that canopy work was not emphasized very much during the instructed portion of AFF. There really wasn't much emphasis during the coached phase, either, although that could have also been a result of being at a small DZ where there aren't many coaches (and solo-self-supervise students are vying for the attention of instructors who are already trying to get the next AFF student briefed and in the air).

When I was filling out my A-card, I would usually ask an instructor what a particular maneuver/skill was and how to do it. Then I'd make a jump, complete the skill, and get signed off. For my own curiosity and out of a desire to be a more informed and safer skydiver, I would then seek out one or two of the most experienced jumpers at the DZ and engage them in a discussion about when to use that maneuver/skill and what some of the nuances, cautions, and consequences are of using that maneuver in different situations (e.g. be careful not to stall your canopy at 100 ft if you're using a flat turn to avoid an obstacle on final, etc).

What my home DZ lacks in certified coaches, it more than makes up for in mentors, but as has been mentioned before, mentoring only works if the student and the mentor are willing. I've met many accomplished and experienced skydivers who will take literally hours to talk to and teach eager new jumpers. But I've met far more students who choose to ignore and avoid the advice of those experienced jumpers, and I've already seen several hurt because of it.

The mentorship method works wonderfully (and, in my opinion, works even better than formal instruction much of the time) when the student and mentor both want to be there. But not all students will be of the persuasion or mentality to seek out knowledge on their own. In that case, I think that a formal requirement for a canopy control course before the A-license is issued is a wonderful idea.

Quote

Did your instructors tell you to practice those things?

Yep, and I did, but it was really just going through the motions to get signed off on my A-card until I took that canopy course and learned the how, the why, and the when of those techniques.

[kallend 1,621]

There should be a penalty for practicing physics without a license.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

There should be a penalty for practicing physics without a license.

Careful. You're ego is showing.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd081508s.gif

[Ron 7]

There already is an answer.....

1. Canopy stacks like Demo jumpers do. Ever watch the GK's? They do an 8-10 way and have one guy landing at a time. They do a quick check of wingloading and the guy with the highest WL lands #1, next #2, next #3... Etc. Guys in the second group land after the first group in their own order.

This means the guy with the Sabre 190 should not be spiraling down to try and land first AND the guy with the Velo 90 should not be hanging in breaks trying to land last. In Zhills my 4way team had a guy with a Sabre 135 that was landing with my team. We were the first group out, he was the second group out. He had a Sabre 135, our largest canopy was a Stiletto 107. There is NO reason a guy in the second group with a 135 should be landing with the first groups velos....

2. Separate landing areas. We are able to land a 400 way without people hitting, but an otter load creates confusion?

First group out lands over here, second group out lands over there, third here... etc. Wanna swoop the pond? Do a hop n pop.

3. Keep your head on a swivel.

The problem is a Sabre is now considered a "novice" performance canopy. 10 years ago it was "High" performance. The education has not kept up with the equipment and people are getting high performance wings with little experience.

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

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

There should be a penalty for practicing physics without a license.

Careful. You're ego is showing.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd081508s.gif

Not pickin' on the Prof but damn! that was funny!

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

[danornan 64]

Ron, I think that you and I, and a lot of others that are responding to this thread are really saying a lot of the same things. I'm hoping that the USPA reads this and not just their "internet dissucssion."

I do agree that education will play a part in safer canopy action. My concern is under 1,000 feet and what you said about the GKs is quite accurate.

They land as if there is a pattern with each where he needs to be automatically. Unfortunately on informal loads, even with the proper education, a previously set pattern, that is enforced will help to do the same thing.

There is no reason why the education can't be improved, but how do you re educate the 50,000 that are already licensed?

I think it is time for a few stop signs on the DZ that are enforced.

1. Each DZ has an established pattern below 1,000 feet.
2. No hook turns or swoops in the pattern, only in designated areas.

I don't think that you can leave it only to education.

Dano

[Ron 7]

Quote

but how do you re educate the 50,000 that are already licensed?

The same way you get someone to land in the correct area on a 400 way. 1. You tell them. 2. You warn them once. 3. You ground them.

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

[danornan 64]

Ron, Does it have to be either or? Why not do both? What would be the downside?

Seems like they could both play a part in a safer drop zone.

Dano

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

There should be a penalty for practicing physics without a license.

Careful. You're ego is showing.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd081508s.gif

If you want legal advice, do you go to a lawyer?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[topdocker 0]

Quote

Ron, I think that you and I, and a lot of others that are responding to this thread are really saying a lot of the same things. I'm hoping that the USPA reads this and not just their "internet dissucssion."


I don't think that you can leave it only to education.

USPA is doing somethin and not just letting this be an electronic discussion, but that takes time. Time to gather data, evaluate various methods, make whatever changes are necessary, and implement those changes. In the meantime USPA HQ is putting the word out there that changes are coming and we need to put this on our personal radar now.

top

Jump more, post less!

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I must respectfully point out that your addition to this discussion defies the laws of physics.

Force = mass x acceleration -- or to say it in English, if you land twice as fast, you hit four times as hard (more or less).

Yours too...

I'm just curious. Based on that formula, can you explain why the impact is four times harder when speed is doubled?

F = m * a

Quote

Where does that come from?

God.

Quote

Where is speed in your equation?

F = m * a

Acceleration is not speed. That's physics 101.

Quote

Quote

The right formula for kinetic energy is E = 0.5 * mass * speed^2

Actually, it's KE = 0.5 * m * v^2, but you're talking flying apples and splattered oranges.

That's exactly what I wrote (writing conventions aside). Thank you.

Quote

Kinetic energy is a calculation of potential force before a body in motion "comes to rest."

Force is a calculation of how hard a body in motion hits when it does come to rest.

Or to say it again in English:

If you land twice as fast, you hit four times as hard.

Okay, that's what I thought... Or to say it in English: you are unable to explain why you hit four times as hard. So I'll explain it to you.

Kinetic energy is the energy you have when you move. When you don't move, your kinetic energy is 0. So, when an object hits the ground, its kinetic energy drops suddenly to 0. That is because the kinetic energy it contained was liberated in the form of a sudden strong pressure on the object, a crater in the ground, some heat, some noise and maybe some broken bones.
Now, you're right about one thing: when the speed is doubled, the impact is four times harder. But obviously you don't really understand why.
Why is the impact four times harder? Because in the equation:
E = 0.5 * m * v^2
v is squared. So, when v is 2 times larger, E is 4 times larger. When v is 3 times larger, E is 9 times larger, etc...

Furthermore, there's a fundamental thing you don't seem to get: F = m*a describes a force, and E = 0.5*m*v^2 describes an enregy. Force and energy are two different things. Once again, that's physics 101.

Quote

F = m * a can be a little tricky, because the "a" is for acceleration, which is sorta like speed, but sorta not.

Wow, now that is real physics...

Seriously, you should take a refresher course in physics, because you seem to lack the basics. And please stop trying to teach it to others. You're really not helping them.

All your egghead blah-blah aside, the fundamental thing I DO get is:

If you land twice as fast, you hit four times as hard.

And here's a hint for you: Acceleration is in fact sorta about speed and sorta not because, you know, acceleration is the rate of change of speed as a function of time. That's Physics 101 too.

Seriously, you should take a refresher course in English reading comprehension because you seem to lack the basics.*



* Just kidding about this last point; respect to you for your English skills; I'd be a very happy guy if I could read, write or speak any second language 1/10th as well as you do English.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Why are people waiting for USPA to "do something?"

Is asking USPA to live up to it's supposed purpose of "keeping skydivers safe" really so much to ask?

Any one jumper can only "do something" at the local level. Most of those you see discussing this issue here have "done something" and continue to "do something" at their local level. And we've been asking USPA to support what we're doing for years now...

[Ron 7]

Quote

Ron, Does it have to be either or? Why not do both? What would be the downside?

It is both. Step one (tell them) is education. Step 2 is making sure they understood. Finally, Step 3 is grounding if they refuse to follow the procedures at that DZ.

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

[Para5-0 0]

I am wondering if anyone has specifically spoken to a director and specifically given him or her something to present to Safety and Training? If so then where is it? If Safety and Training votes on the proposal it will be presented to the full BOD. I have read the whole thread and wondered if this time was spent putting something together then maybe we can initiate some debate and/or change.
I think minus a few word exchanges about physics everyones somewhat on the same page. Why not use the time to present something that makes good sense.
Again, I am just trying to get some more information maybe some of you have gone down that road or maybe it has fallen on deaf ears I dont know.
I do like alot of what I am reading though, education can only be a good thing, as long as it isnt accompanied by over regualation.
Every Friday night for 8 weeks we conducted a canopy seminar in the evening this summer. What I found out was the ones that were present were the most conscientious skydivers amongst the dz. It wasnt them I wanted to reach out to, it was the ones that werent there. Your proposals will allow us to reach that group.
www.richwinstock.com

[davelepka 4]

Quote

USPA is doing somethin and not just letting this be an electronic discussion, but that takes time. Time to gather data, evaluate various methods, make whatever changes are necessary, and implement those changes. In the meantime USPA HQ is putting the word out there that changes are coming and we need to put this on our personal radar now.

You're kidding, right?

How long does it take for the USPA to take notice of a problem? What is it now that's suddenly got them all hot and bothered? That 75% of the fatalities in 2010 are under open canopies? Is that what did it?

I don't know the exact figures or dates, but I do know that open canopy fatalites have been the #1 killer of skydivers in the US for years, and I don't think I'm going out on a limb if I say it's been a decade.

Additionally, before that segment was the top of the fatalities list, there had to be a period of several years where it's percentage was on the rise. That alone should have been enough to wake up the USPA that there was a problem and that it needed attention. Once the upward trend was established, and maintained for 2 or 3 years, this should have been the #1 issue in the area of safety and training.

Despite this, we get students who learn all about center point turns, and fall rate control, but who are afraid to exit an aircraft below 10k ft and cannot fly their canopies out of a hole in the ground.

I make no apoligies for my attitude about this issue and the USPA. I don't buy any of their bullshit, and never will until they put their (actaully my) money where their mouth is, and produce some sort of results. Not just a plan, but produce the plan, implement, and get results. Then I'll give credit where credit is due, but in the last few years all I've seen are a poster, a DVD nobody watched, and more and more dead jumpers.

[danornan 64]

Quote

I am wondering if anyone has specifically spoken to a director and specifically given him or her something to present to Safety and Training? accompanied by over regualation.

YES

I started several months ago and the response was very positive. If everyone interested in a change would do the same there, it would make a positive difference. I want more predictability in the LZ.

It needs to be emphasized in TRAINING and ENFORCEMENT. Not one or the other, but both.

Dano

• Quote

[MrDree 0]

Quote

All your egghead blah-blah aside, the fundamental thing I DO get is:

If you land twice as fast, you hit four times as hard.

Agreed. That's a good thing to know.
But knowing why is even better. What about if you land 7 times as fast? How hard will the impact be? To answer this question, you need to know which formula to use.
And the answer is, the impact will be 49 times as hard. Because kinetic energy is proportional to the speed squared (E=0.5*m*v^2).

Quote

And here's a hint for you: Acceleration is in fact sorta about speed and sorta not because, you know, acceleration is the rate of change of speed as a function of time. That's Physics 101 too.

Of course, acceleration and speed are linked, but they're not the same. They represent two different physical properties, measured using two different units.

Would you say that the area of a circle is the same as its diameter? Of course not, even if they're obviously linked.

Quote

Seriously, you should take a refresher course in English reading comprehension because you seem to lack the basics.*



* Just kidding about this last point; respect to you for your English skills; I'd be a very happy guy if I could read, write or speak any second language 1/10th as well as you do English.

Thanks. Actually, English is my fourth language, behind French, Italian and German (and before Japanese

"One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching."

Dudeist Skydiver #101

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

Why are people waiting for USPA to "do something?"

Because if I stand up and say that every A license candidate needs to attend a basic canopy control course, and here is the syllabus for that course; nobody is going to listen, and nothing will be accomplished.

If the USPA stands up and says that every A license candidate needs to attend a basic canopy control course, and here is the syllabus for that course, everyone is going to listen, and every A licesne candidate will attend a basic canopy control course.

I'll expand that last statement a bit - every A license candidate will attend a basic canopy control course before being awarded the A license, and set free to jump along side you and I with little or no supervision.

I don't see an epidemic of low time jumpers dieing because they don't know basic canopy control. The fatalities seem to be clustered in mid and high time jumpers failing in HP landings or canopy collisions.

By the way, can you fly your canopy out of a hole in the ground?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[danornan 64]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why are people waiting for USPA to "do something?"

Because if I stand up and say that every A license candidate needs to attend a basic canopy control course, and here is the syllabus for that course; nobody is going to listen, and nothing will be accomplished.

If the USPA stands up and says that every A license candidate needs to attend a basic canopy control course, and here is the syllabus for that course, everyone is going to listen, and every A licesne candidate will attend a basic canopy control course.

I'll expand that last statement a bit - every A license candidate will attend a basic canopy control course before being awarded the A license, and set free to jump along side you and I with little or no supervision.

I don't see an epidemic of low time jumpers dieing because they don't know basic canopy control. The fatalities seem to be clustered in mid and high time jumpers failing in HP landings or canopy collisions.

By the way, can you fly your canopy out of a hole in the ground?

Thanks John..... a nice dose of reality!

Dano

[beowulf 1]

I was thinking the same thing as I was reading through this thread.

I remain unconvinced that the problem is AFF training. That is not to say that AFF doesn't have any room for improvement.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I don't see an epidemic of low time jumpers dieing because they don't know basic canopy control. The fatalities seem to be clustered in mid and high time jumpers failing in HP landings or canopy collisions.

Two things to keep in mind, in terms of the available data, all we have is information on the fatalities under open canopies. Any injuries under open canopies are either unreported, or if they are reported the details of those remain unpublished. As far as I am concerned, both fatalities and injuries are unacceptable, and anything we can do to avoid or reduce the frequency of either has become a necessity.

On that same subject, one reason you may see more fatalities in the mid time jumpers over the newbies is due to canopy size. You have to make a monumental error to kill yourself under a 210 or a 190, canopy sizes common to newbies and their first rig. Once you progress to more of a 'sport' canopy, say a 150 or 135, the magnitude of error needed to result in a fatality goes way down.

The other point is that the current student training program, the ISP, has been in place long enough that many mid to hign time jumpers were trained under that system. When they advance to higher performance canopies, and then are involved in an incident, I feel safe making the assertion that improved training and increased focus on canopy control during their 'formative' years might have made a difference in both their abilities and desicion making.

Beyond all that, the undisputed fact is that there is a very real and very severe problem in skydiving with regards to canopy control. I cannot see how starting at the most basic level, initial training, and tailoring it to include increased focus on canopy control and it's importance in making a safe skydive, can be a bad thing. Even if it turns out not to be the keystone of the effort to reduce open canopy accidents, it will improve the knowledge and outlook of new jumpers, which are both good things.

I have never stated any sort of objection to additional, concurrent action in terms of reducing open canopy incidents, just that I feel improved student training should be a part of that effort. If you have additional ideas about the source or solution to the problem, by all means, speak up. To just roll in and protest an idea, which in itself will 'do no harm', without making an alternate suggestion is a waste of everyones time.

Quote

By the way, can you fly your canopy out of a hole in the ground?

In a technical sense, if the hole was big enough and I had the airspeed, yes. I have flown my canopy into and then out of a ditch, which is similar to a hole.

In a literal sense, it was not meant in a literal sense. It's a play on the cliche, 'He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground'.

[DSE 3]

Quote

I don't see an epidemic of low time jumpers dieing because they don't know basic canopy control. The fatalities seem to be clustered in mid and high time jumpers failing in HP landings or canopy collisions.

no, no, no. Didn't you read upthread where my position is demolished? The solution is that we're not teaching S/L any longer, so people don't learn canopy skills properly. If they learned canopy skills according to the actual ISP, they'd not be having issues at 500 jumps.

Require the canopy course between the C and D licenses, you'd get maybe perhaps possibly somewhere, I think (but I'm not sure).
However, a fair number of people don't go for the C/D licenses. A recent collision involved an A license skydiver with 400 jumps.

I'm looking forward to hearing discussion on this topic at PIA in a few months. The USPA's position has been they can't mandate downsizing, and that they can't mandate landing areas, they can only recommend. And from Ed Scott's mouth to my ear, they will not mandate nor recommend downsizing progression due to a perceived risk of liability.