0
chuckakers

USPA and the canopy issue

Recommended Posts

Quote

from Ed Scott's mouth to my ear, they will not mandate nor recommend downsizing progression due to a perceived risk of liability.



To whom? The USPA? A failure to act on behalf of the members based on a perception of liability to the organization seems a bit backwards. What good is the organization if the members are dead or not jumping due to injury?

It's bullshit anyway. Here's the solution, every size on a WL chart is accompanied by an asterisk, and the below the chart you have this -

* All wingloadings represent the maximum allowable for the corresponding jump numbers. This chart is not suggesting that there is any minimum Wl for any level of experience, and no jumper should downsize their canopy unless they have achieved a level of proficiency on their current canopy, and are comfortable with the idea of jumping a smaller canopy.


Will jumpers disregard this, and follow the max WL to the number? Sure they will, but that's got nothing to do with the USPA. Even then, if the chart repersented reasonable WL values, that plan of action would still represent a reasonable and gradual course od downsizing.

How do you think PD gets away with building canopies that poeple use to drill themselves into the ground on a daily basis (I use PD because of their commanding market share)? It's the warning label, which as we all know indicates a very conservative set of circumsatnces that very few people actaully follow. None the less, they establish the company line, and what people want to do with it is up to them. There's no reason it should be any different for the USPA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Here's the solution, every size on a WL chart is accompanied by an asterisk, and the below the chart you have this -

* All wingloadings represent the maximum allowable for the corresponding jump numbers. This chart is not suggesting that there is any minimum Wl for any level of experience, and no jumper should downsize their canopy unless they have achieved a level of proficiency on their current canopy, and are comfortable with the idea of jumping a smaller canopy.



So simple a solution!

But what about all the incidents that people were under apporpriately sized canopies?

Do we want USPA to have the authority to mandate what type/size of canopy you jump? Do you want an S&TA weighing you before you can jump that day to see if you are over the wingloading chart? How do we enforce a wingload rule everyday? Do we have a seperate chart for camera, wingsuits, or instructors (they should be setting a good example to their students and fly more docile canopies)?

Education is the key during all phases of a jumper's career. If you don't have the mental/physical tools to make good flying decisions, flying ANY canopy is still dangerous to you and those around you.

top
Jump more, post less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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).


True, but you can use the force equation to get there too.


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.

They are indeed linked, and in both cases, linked closely enough that the average person can use them interchangeably and arrive at the same understanding of space, time and IMPACT... even if in so doing it aggravates "real" physicists.

;)


Quote


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

B|

* 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 :)

Sugoi-ne!

Soshite sensei, arigato gosai-mashita.


B|
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



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



There is - it includes injury and/or death.


+!

B|
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DSE, you said:
Quote

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.



Your last statement first—I’ve never spoken to you about canopy safety, downsizing progression, or any related topic. And I’ve never said to anyone that USPA shouldn’t address downsizing due to perceived liability. (And in fact USPA already does recommend downsizing progression in the SIM.) I don’t know whose words you think you’re repeating, but they’re not mine. As to your first statement, there is no USPA position that holds that restrictions on downsizing or landing areas can only be recommended, not mandated. Recommendations and education may have been USPA’s methods of choice to date for some of these issues, but that doesn’t mean that the USPA board has taken a position that it can never mandate something in this arena.

Overall, we’re glad this thread is so active and we’re pulling some good ideas from it. I’ll also invite anyone to give us their thoughts on our new web page as well. As I’ve said here and elsewhere, we want the full range of ideas to consider how to attack this problem; nothing is off the table.

Ed Scott, USPA Executive Director
www.uspa.org

Read the USPA blog!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



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.

.



As I have written a number of times before, I would replace the night jump requirement for a "D" with an advanced canopy flight requirement. We clearly have an epidemic of canopy related fatalities. There is no epidemic of sunset load fatalities among parachutists who haven't made night jumps..
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

DSE, you said:

Quote

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.



Your last statement first—I’ve never spoken to you about canopy safety, downsizing progression, or any related topic. And I’ve never said to anyone that USPA shouldn’t address downsizing due to perceived liability. (And in fact USPA already does recommend downsizing progression in the SIM.) I don’t know whose words you think you’re repeating, but they’re not mine. As to your first statement, there is no USPA position that holds that restrictions on downsizing or landing areas can only be recommended, not mandated. Recommendations and education may have been USPA’s methods of choice to date for some of these issues, but that doesn’t mean that the USPA board has taken a position that it can never mandate something in this arena.

Overall, we’re glad this thread is so active and we’re pulling some good ideas from it. I’ll also invite anyone to give us their thoughts on our new web page as well. As I’ve said here and elsewhere, we want the full range of ideas to consider how to attack this problem; nothing is off the table.

Ed Scott, USPA Executive Director




Awe gee, Ed, you've forgotten our conversation in front of the Cafe during Nationals? When I was uploading video to Good Morning America for you?
That was a special time for me. It was a good conversation.
You might recall the PD flags that kept breaking off/falling to the ground in front of the cafe and that while we were talking, there was a person there trying to hammer wooden pegs into the Eloy dirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do we want USPA to have the authority to mandate what type/size of canopy you jump?



If I want to jump an aggressive canopy and/or an aggressive wingloading, then yes, I do want USPA to have the authority to tell me "no, you can't jump that 58 sq ft Icarus Ridicarus until after you've received additional training focused on the ability to fly that canopy without killing or injuring other people."

Quote

How do we enforce a wingload rule everyday?



How do we keep 100 jump wonders out of wingsuits? Someone on the dz has the authority to say no. Any S&TA that is worth a shit knows what the local jumpers are flying and which ones shouldn't really be flying what they have. A BSR would give them something to point at when they tell Joe Awesome that a 1.6 wingloading at 200 jumps isn't the best idea and they'll need to go on down the road if they want to jump it.

Quote

Do we have a separate chart for camera, wingsuits, or instructors (they should be setting a good example to their students and fly more docile canopies)?



Since when are instructors required to fly docile canopies? I don't recall that being part of the AFF cert course I took a couple of years ago, is it new, did I miss something?

Quote

Education is the key during all phases of a jumper's career. If you don't have the mental/physical tools to make good flying decisions, flying ANY canopy is still dangerous to you and those around you.



Good point. Where is a new skydiver supposed to get those tools, and what assurance does s/he have that the information s/he is getting is good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If they learned canopy skills according to the actual ISP, they'd not be having issues at 500 jumps.



If I can pointout that the SIM recommends a 1.5 WL for jumpers with 500 jumps. It is at this juncture in a skydiving career that presumably the jumper will start to initiate higher performance landings. High performance canopies/landings are not covered. So that might be a great time for an advanced canopy course of some sort.
and I do understand that this is being done prior to the 500 jump recommendation. I am dealing with several rather aggressive downsizers at our DZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich,
There are *several* really good canopy course coaches out there with very solid, functioning programs. USPA might do well to work with what's there vs trying to re-invent the wheel.
There is also a model of "buying" an existing educational program; maybe now is a good time to repeat it.
I'd agree; an advanced canopy course is more what we need vs doing anything differently in the ISP.
FWIW, my home DZ does not allow a wingloading beyond 1.0 for the first 100 jumps. There is a canopy program in the late fall that all newer jumpers are "strongly encouraged" to attend that includes a rehash of the canopy portions of the ISP and conversations about jumping at DZ's that have higher traffic/larger loads.

USPA should be applauded for participating in a discussion on DZ.com. Somewhere in all these ideas has to be an answer. Hopefully USPA will continue to participate here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

FWIW, my home DZ does not allow a wingloading less than 1.0 for the first 100 jumps.



Do you mean greater than 1.0?
"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

USPA should be applauded for participating in a discussion on DZ.com. Somewhere in all these ideas has to be an answer. Hopefully USPA will continue to participate here.



I'll keep participating as long as we have worthwhile discussion (or a physics lesson, can't go wrong with physics!).

There's a whole bunch of smart people here who can come up with something!

top
Jump more, post less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



That's been the problem all along. USPA refuses to be an enforcement agency in all but the most extreme cases, and many DZ's won't police themselves.

Watcha gonna do?
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

but that doesn’t mean that the USPA board has taken a position that it can never mandate something in this arena



I don't think the USPA is in a very good position to mandate something in this arena, anyway. You already have many USPA members jumping at DZ's that are operating 'outside' of the USPA bubble or other jumpers who don't 'need' to follow USPA training guidelines or recommendations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I would replace the night jump requirement for a "D" with an advanced canopy flight requirement.



Expand please.

I think we should follow aviation's example:

Want to fly a complex airplane... Need an instructor to sign you off.

Want to fly a high performance airplane.... Need an instructor to sign off. HP would be defined as a WL higher than Brian Germains WL chart.

I'd make it an S&TA instead of an instructor.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



I'd make it an S&TA instead of an instructor.



To play devils advocate;
I know of one S&TA that was tossed off a DZ (with video support) for being a safety hazard in multiple instances.

A different S&TA passively participated in an event that ultimately let to a fatality.

Counting on a USPA appointee doesn't offer any fundamental security.

If there is to be a mandated course to pass people off for HP canopies or high wingloadings, it would require a consistent evaluative process vs an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If there is to be a mandated course to pass people off for HP canopies or high wingloadings, it would require a consistent evaluative process vs an opinion.




That's exactly why it's a bad idea. You cannot expect any sort of consistancy when you have a pass/fail type scenario. Beyond that, you have the problem of administering the testing and certification of both the testers and the students.

This is why my vote is for a greater focus on canopy control in the formative training, instilling the knowledge and skills to pilot a canopy as well as the idea that canopy piloting is a serisou skill worhtwhile of dedicated time and energy.

In terms of more advanced jumpers, that where a jump number based limitation of wing loading and canopy type into play. If you can keep jumpers on a conservative WL and canopy type through 400 or 500 jumps, they will have time to develop the experience to better handle higher performance canopies and make better choices while doing so.

Jump numbers may not be a perfect metric, but it is consistant and easy to administer. Your jumps are your jumps, end of story. What one S&TA thinks at DZ 'A' as compared to the S&TA at DZ 'B' is of no consequence, if you have 350 jumps, the chart says this is what you get.

What you end up with are jumpers who are instilled with the idea that canopy control is an important area of study, and then are limited to a reasonable course of downsizing if they so desire. By the time a jumper has 400 or 500 jumps, they are ready to be 'cut loose' and make their own choices.

The more complicated you make a solution, the less the chances that solution has of making into practice and actually succeeding. A simple pre-A license canopy control course, which can be taught by any reasonably knowledgable jumper, followed by some limitations as to what size and type of canopy you can fly is about as simple as it gets. It's a two hour class with a few hop n pops, two of which are required for the A anyway. A Wl chart is just a click of the print button from being hung up at every DZ in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If there is to be a mandated course to pass people off for HP canopies or high wingloadings, it would require a consistent evaluative process vs an opinion.



And I know people that never learned to pack, never did water training...etc.

Just because some people break the rules does not mean the process is flawed.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In terms of more advanced jumpers, that where a jump number based limitation of wing loading and canopy type into play. If you can keep jumpers on a conservative WL and canopy type through 400 or 500 jumps, they will have time to develop the experience to better handle higher performance canopies and make better choices while doing so.



According to the USPA:
Quote

Intentional Low Turns—43 fatalities, typically jumpers with several hundred jumps or more trying to swoop. Number of jumps: Mean is 1,489. Median: 1,000

Canopy Collisions—38 fatalities, some caused by being too close on deployment but most are collisions at pattern altitudes. High-performance approaches resulting in striking slower-flying canopies are on the rise. Number of jumps: Mean is 1,490. Median: 850

Unintentional Low Turns—32 fatalities, typically trying to turn into the wind or avoid an obstacle. Number of jumps: Mean is 706. Median: 200

Landing Problems—32 fatalities, mostly striking obstacles and bad landings, many are related to off-field landings. Number of jumps: Mean is 1,419. Median: 450

Low cutaway/low reserve deployment—13 fatalities, many of the low-cutaway fatalities involved higher wing-loaded canopies where a great deal of altitude was lost in a short time under a spinning main canopy. Number of jumps: Mean is 922. Median: 96



Looks like most of those fatalities were with people that have more than 400-500 jumps. (going by median jump numbers) with the means showing it happening much more to higher jump numbers.
"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Looks like most of those fatalities were with people that have more than 400-500 jumps. (going by median jump numbers) with the means showing it happening much more to higher jump numbers.



What is does not show is if any of those people had training or if prior training would have prevented the accident.

Also... People trying to learn hook turns.... Most people will not start trying till 200ish jumps, so that will shift the numbers North.

Canopy Collisions... Well, I'd bet most collisions are big ways and people with <200 jumps are not exactly going to be on bigger ways.

So, lots of factors can be considered... I fail to see how early eduction is a bad thing.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



I'd make it an S&TA instead of an instructor.



To play devils advocate;
I know of one S&TA that was tossed off a DZ (with video support) for being a safety hazard in multiple instances.

A different S&TA passively participated in an event that ultimately let to a fatality.

Counting on a USPA appointee doesn't offer any fundamental security.

If there is to be a mandated course to pass people off for HP canopies or high wingloadings, it would require a consistent evaluative process vs an opinion.



Agreed. I'm sure there are many S&TA's out there who are good, but I've known more than one that was a danger to themselves and everyone else.

Being a S&TA doesn't make someone an authority on canopy flight (or anything for that matter).

Ian
Performance Designs Factory Team

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