USPA and the canopy issue

[pilotdave 0]

If you ask me, pulling is about the most basic survival skill in skydiving. Your system removes it from the basic training and puts it with the "fun stuff."

Listen, if AFF students were dying left and right under good parachutes, I'd agree with you. But it's experienced jumpers dying and killing each other. Initial training is not the cause.

Dave

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Interesting concept... but all I can see is it'd put students on smaller, faster canopies more quickly. It has the benefit that downsizing would be monitored and based on demonstrated skill. How many jumps do you assume the "default" course would take before freefall? Guessing far fewer than a typical student has now when they reach the point of downsizing to 1.0.

It would also force DZs to offer more sizes of student rigs.

Personally, I bet there'd be more injuries, not less. You can't teach experience.

Dave

okay then, just delete the downsize part of the graduation requirements.

Next?

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."

[grimmie 173]

Make every licensed skydiver in the world take an advanced canopy/landing course.

Ever go to a boogie and watch the "experienced" jumpers fly?

[robinheid 0]

Quote

If you ask me, pulling is about the most basic survival skill in skydiving. Your system removes it from the basic training and puts it with the "fun stuff."

Listen, if AFF students were dying left and right under good parachutes, I'd agree with you. But it's experienced jumpers dying and killing each other. Initial training is not the cause.

Dave

pulling is only a survival skill if you are... uh... freefalling.

and the point here is that experienced people are dying in canopy accidents because they never learned how to do things right in the first place and it's a testament to the relative safety of parachuting that they lived as long as they did.

Castles made of sand look great until the first wave; castles made of rock look good after the wave too.

Our current parachute training turns out canopy-pilot castles made of sand that sometime lasts for a long time before that first wave shows up and kills them.

I'm saying we need parachute training that turns out canopy pilot castles built on rock, not sand.

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."

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Make every licensed skydiver in the world take an advanced canopy/landing course.

Ever go to a boogie and watch the "experienced" jumpers fly?

that TOO!

For example, as part of every license requirement, there must be a continuing education canopy course/workshop/seminar of some kind.

when you hit the top license, a similiar requirement every other renewal year, or every third/fourth/fifth renewal year... you know, like with a driver's license in many states... you have to re-take the written test every X number of years.

There are many models on which to base our system; we just have to be open to seeking them out and then applying them.

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."

[Fast 0]

Quote

Quote

If you ask me, pulling is about the most basic survival skill in skydiving. Your system removes it from the basic training and puts it with the "fun stuff."

Listen, if AFF students were dying left and right under good parachutes, I'd agree with you. But it's experienced jumpers dying and killing each other. Initial training is not the cause.

Dave

pulling is only a survival skill if you are... uh... freefalling.

and the point here is that experienced people are dying in canopy accidents because they never learned how to do things right in the first place and it's a testament to the relative safety of parachuting that they lived as long as they did.

Castles made of sand look great until the first wave; castles made of rock look good after the wave too.

Our current parachute training turns out canopy-pilot castles made of sand that sometime lasts for a long time before that first wave shows up and kills them.

I'm saying we need parachute training that turns out canopy pilot castles built on rock, not sand.

Ya know, you might be right. Maybe you're not though. Either way - it isn't something we are ever going to find out. USPA would never force that on dropzones and most of them would just leave USPA to keep doing AFF. We have to look at practical solutions.

In our AFF program we emphasize and freefall and canopy. We expect a lot from our students. For the most part we are creating skydivers that have a good concept of both aspects of a skydive.

I am still heavily in favor of a continuing / advanced education program that is built up and progresses around the different steps of licenses. It's a practical solution (at least in comparison to making people start with a static line program). It's something that we have the groundwork set up for and it's something I can see USPA supporting and implementing.

We just need the "educational" stuff to go along with our licensing program. Someone needs to sit down and figure it out. "What's important to teach at what experience level and how much of it do you think people can really absorb." I don't think most of my first jump students could really wrap their head around all the extra canopy stuff that should be covered even if we took freefall away for 20 skydives.

A program that steps the skydiver up into more and more advanced topics and has an easy way of pointing out to people where you are at in the progression could help, it certainly wouldn't hurt.

~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

[DSE 3]

Quote

[I am still heavily in favor of a continuing / advanced education program that is built up and progresses around the different steps of licenses. It's a practical solution (at least in comparison to making people start with a static line program). It's something that we have the groundwork set up for and it's something I can see USPA supporting and implementing.

.

Derek, we're on the same page. The advanced courses are there already, just not inside the USPA framework and certainly not requisite.
The problem with tying to licenses is that you'll always have someone saying "I'm happy with just an A license so I can travel around."
Any ideas on how to get this class of skydiver into advanced training?

[davelepka 4]

We're fucked. The training is old school and the canopies are new school V3.0. On top of that, the average WL and performance that is considered 'acceptable' for newbies and low timers has been creeping up every year, and in direct correlation, so have the number of open canopy incidents and fatalities.

Why does an A license holder recieve the same canopy related training I recieved 15 years ago?

Why does that same jumper then jump a canopy that would have been an 'expert' level wing 15 years ago?

When are we going to relize that the top-end of canopy performance has nothing to do with anyone but the top level canopy pilots? Just becasue Luigi can jump a 37sq ft canopy, I didn't rush out and downsize my wing, his accomplishements have nothing to do with me.

What used to be considered a 'hot' canopy was a sqaure-ish square, short diving Sabre 135. That was a wing-and-a-half back in the day, but today the semi-eliptical, long diving Sabre2 135 is looked at as 'intermediate' and as a 'stepping stone'. The training hasn't changed, jumpers haven't all become The 6 Million Dollar Man, smarter, stronger, and faster than ever before, but for some reason the idea of what canopies are 'acceptable' has slowly crept way too far in the wrong direction.

The USPA sucks. They sat there with their thumb up their butt too long, and now it's out of control. The situation is so far out of hand that getting back to a reasonable place would represent a huge change in training, equipment selection, and the general thinking of the community as a whole, and none of that is ever going to happen for the worst reason of all.

Much like what canopies or sizes have become 'acceptable' for newbies, so has the number of canopy related fatalites. Forgetting that 75% of the 2010 fatalites thus far have been under open canopies, and using the '08 and '09 figures alone, you get an average of 42.5% of all fatalites happening under open canopies. If steps were taken to cut that number in half (fat chance) the community as a whole would rise up and rejoice. People would sing the priases, and the USPA would boast in some bullshit PR move that open canopy fatalites were only 20% of the total.

People would be happy that 20% of skydivers died with an open canopy because we let it get so far that 40% actually are. 20% still sucks dick, but everyone would be blinded by the 40% we're at now that it would seem OK.

The only solution is for the individual jumpers to take action. If you see a new jumper you like the looks of, mentor the shit out of them. Don't let them fall into these traps. Make them learn about their parachutes, and how they work. Lock them down to a 1.0 to 1 max for 100 jumps. Max meaning the maximum, meaning that many people will actually be below that.

If they don't want to listen, deciede how much you really care. If you really care, make their time at the DZ a living hell. Ostracize them, and make sure nobody wants to jump with them, and nobody wants to pack for them, and nobody even wants to hang out with them. Get them to quit jumping before jumping makes them quit jumping. If you really care, you'd rather never see them again knowing you kept them alive and kicking that much longer than to just let them make the same mistakes that are killing other jumpers, only to have to meet their family for the first time at their funeral.

If you deciede you really don't care, screw it, and make sure they don't take you out in the process of doing whatever it is that's going to kill them, and find someone to mentor who will listen.

We're fucked.

[rwieder 0]

Quote

Any ideas on how to get this class of skydiver into advanced training?

Eventually the DZ's are going to have to step up their efforts to puch programs such as this one. I'm a firm believer (If I were the DZO) that a PJSM, JSA would be held each jumping day. (PJSM: Pre Jump Safety Meeting) (JSA: Jump Safety Analaysis) That way everyone is on the same page while under canopy & on jump run. I've been missed by no less than 2 feet by 2 skydivers who was still in freefal while I'm under a SSS canopy while some jack-ass is getting his rocks off pushing the envelope and getting all of the ground rush he possibly can. When I was training years ago we had one guy who wouldn't pull until a 1,000 AGL then having a 2 second canopy ride, while he's thinking he's cool. I'm calling BS on all of the skydivers who pull this BS. It's selfish, careless & ignorant on their behalf. They only care about getting what they want f*ck anybody else. I have approached a couple of skydivers who have pulled this crap on me and told them if they did that around me again, somebody's getting an ass whooping, maybe me, maybe them. Sad but true, it's the only language they understand.

Quote

I encourage everyone who listens to "Please" obey the safety rules," so neither them or anyone else is ever hurt for no reason other than a moments lapse in they're thought process.

We can either police ourselves, or be policed by the USPA. Which do you prefer? Please give what I've said some thought. Thanks for listening, and may God Bless each & every one of you.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[wmw999 2,121]

For the younger jumper who really is focused on canopy piloting, make sure they understand that it's a discipline in and of itself, and that if they're focusing on that, it means they're not learning canopy piloting at the end of a bad-ass freefly or RW jump -- they get out on their own pass, and do just that.

There's a limited amount that most people can learn on a single jump. With the advancements in canopy, it's no longer "what you do at the end," it's something that requires as much time and effort as the other disciplines.

Wendy P.

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

Why does an A license holder recieve the same canopy related training I recieved 15 years ago?

Like I said before, if that's the case at your DZ, they are doing it wrong. I, too, started 15 years ago, and received essentially no canopy training after the FJC. Students today receive canopy training (admitedly less than may be required) during the entire student program up the the A license.

Or at least they should be. Read the ISP. It has tons more canopy information and requirements than existed when you and I made our first jumps.

- Dan G

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Make every licensed skydiver in the world take an advanced canopy/landing course.

If every jumper of every experience level took a canopy course structured like the one in the SIM, I might put my rig back on.

Too bad it'll never happen.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

I think the order has little importance in the big picture. You won't lower canopy accident rates among experienced jumpers by front loading canopy training while they're students. I believe spreading it out is a good approach for learning. Teach more advanced topics to more advanced students. Early on, let them focus on just finding the landing area and flying a pattern.


Dave

Make advanced canopy training a D license requirement and drop the useless night jump requirement. People are dying in daylight flying their canopies. We don't have an epidemic of sunset load fatalities because people haven't enough night jump experience.

...

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Are you seriously suggesting that banning HP canopies is a better option that education? You won't get my support on that one.

No, what he is saying is that if one thinks night jumps are useless since they could not happen without prior planning then it is even easier to avoid HP canopy flight.

And BTW I have given a night jump brief on the ride to altitude before because it looked like it was going to be darkish when we landed. I told everyone that they could stay on the plan no issue, but if they were going to jump...Listen up.

It was pretty dark... so "night" jumps have a better chance of just happening than HP canopy flight.

He never suggested banning anything.... He never has.

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

[pilotdave 0]

I'm fine with that. I personally like the night jump requirement (topic for another thread), but I'd be all for adding a canopy course requirement in addition to, or instead of the night jump requirement.

I'd have no problem swapping a canopy course instead of live water training for the B-license too. Many DZs offer canopy courses more often than water training as it is. Or better yet, require both.

We had 3 canopy courses at my DZ this year. The first was Flight-1's essential skills course. One person that took the course had about 2 years in the sport and about 1000 jumps. Extremely current. He nearly got kicked out for falling asleep and not paying attention. Turns out he was so bored because he did all the things being taught in the course when he was an AFF student (which lasted 3 whole weeks, BTW). Even though I was pissed at how he behaved in the course, I was pretty happy to hear he wasn't learning a thing!

Dave

[billvon 2,400]

>Make advanced canopy training a D license requirement . . .

Sounds good. Training might indeed reduce fatalities.

>We don't have an epidemic of sunset load fatalities because
>people haven't enough night jump experience.

Might that be because we require night jump training? If you really think that training reduces fatalities, then that applies to more than just canopy control.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

>We don't have an epidemic of sunset load fatalities because
>people haven't enough night jump experience.

Might that be because we require night jump training?

Nope, not at all.
Sunset...night jump...two completely different animals (unless you're the bozo with the dark, dark, dark shades)

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

[billvon 2,400]

>Sunset...night jump...two completely different animals . . .

Some of my favorite night jumps started out as "sunset" jumps.

[topdocker 0]

(This has been a great discussion about the topic!)

If we are looking to have experienced jumpers learn better canopy control, it only seeems logical that we do that as early as possible, before they develop bad habits or injure/kill themselves. Therefore, we should make at least a "basic" class an A license requirement, then subsequent class(es) should be part of higher license requirements. Maybe each license has its canopy class that is required?

Ultimately, this will add to the costs of being a student, and working through the license progression later on. Also, this puts more pressure on the DZ (especially the smaller ones) to have instructors availible for canopy control courses.

top

Jump more, post less!

[robinheid 0]

Quote

(This has been a great discussion about the topic!)

If we are looking to have experienced jumpers learn better canopy control, it only seeems logical that we do that as early as possible, before they develop bad habits or injure/kill themselves. Therefore, we should make at least a "basic" class an A license requirement.

And all I'm saying is... put this basic class BEFORE the freefall training starts.

D'OH!

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."

[topdocker 0]

Quote

And all I'm saying is... put this basic class BEFORE the freefall training starts.

D'OH!

I'm on your side on this one, Robin.

top

Jump more, post less!

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

There sincerely is no sneer, Robin.
If you undertook the effort, then I applaud it. Effort is effort and takes dedication.

okay, thanks. Appreciated.

Quote

But what you did 15 years ago isn't relevant to today.

How would you know? You don't even know what I wrote (or did)... and really, what part of "teach survival skills first, fun skills second" isn't relevant today?

Still awaiting your answer.

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."

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

And all I'm saying is... put this basic class BEFORE the freefall training starts.

D'OH!

I'm on your side on this one, Robin.

top

Coolio!

I thought maybe you were... my comment was aimed more at the peeps who get it that we need more parachute-specific training outside of our current freefall-focused training system, but who don't yet get it that it needs to be the FIRST thing new jumpers learn to do, not a subsequent thing.

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."

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There sincerely is no sneer, Robin.
If you undertook the effort, then I applaud it. Effort is effort and takes dedication.

okay, thanks. Appreciated.

Quote

But what you did 15 years ago isn't relevant to today.

How would you know? You don't even know what I wrote (or did)... and really, what part of "teach survival skills first, fun skills second" isn't relevant today?

Still awaiting your answer.

My answer is the same one I put in a different explanation above, but if you wanna poke...

Advocacy of replacing/supplementing AFF with SL/IAD is strained at best because it's not practical. Many DZ's won't go for it for any number of reasons.
So...dream of your Utopia all you wish. Utopia will always be there for you.
But back in the world of reality...
Canopy training emphasis in the existing structure, supplanted with better training methods, can be very effective, I believe.

Tools like the ParaSim are terrific teaching tools too, but you're not going to see the USPA mandate those at every GM DZ either.
Work within the parameters of reality, maybe we can have a real discussion, Robin.
Now please, i've got to get back to my Munchkins slaving away in my candyland.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There sincerely is no sneer, Robin.
If you undertook the effort, then I applaud it. Effort is effort and takes dedication.

okay, thanks. Appreciated.

Quote

But what you did 15 years ago isn't relevant to today.

How would you know? You don't even know what I wrote (or did)... and really, what part of "teach survival skills first, fun skills second" isn't relevant today?

Still awaiting your answer.

My answer is the same one I put in a different explanation above, but if you wanna poke...

Advocacy of replacing/supplementing AFF with SL/IAD is strained at best because it's not practical. Many DZ's won't go for it for any number of reasons.
So...dream of your Utopia all you wish. Utopia will always be there for you.
But back in the world of reality...
Canopy training emphasis in the existing structure, supplanted with better training methods, can be very effective, I believe.

Tools like the ParaSim are terrific teaching tools too, but you're not going to see the USPA mandate those at every GM DZ either.
Work within the parameters of reality, maybe we can have a real discussion, Robin.
Now please, i've got to get back to my Munchkins slaving away in my candyland.

So, when it comes to USPA's failed media and marketing system, you loudly challenge the status quo and call out those who defend and perpetuate it (clicky).

But when it comes to USPA's failed training system, you loudly defend and perpetuate the status quo and call out those who challenge it.

Fascinating.

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."