USPA and the canopy issue

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Which is why I said my opinion is that it should be a pre-B-license requirement

Why B? By that time the jumper could have gone to any DZ, and jumped in all sorts of different situations and conditions where the extra information could come in handy.

I'm not suggesting we teach pre A license jumeprs to swoop, far from it. What I'm saying is that if you thought about a young person close to you, and they had just learned to skydive, what would you want them to know before they headed out to an unknown DZ on their own. No instructors watching over them, no oversite from experienced jumpers concerned for their well-being, just out in the world left to fend for themselves.

Whatever you could think of, that's what we should be teaching people. The A licesne grants jumpers the right to self jumpmaster, and sometimes that means doing a solo on a nice day, jumping from a 182 shared only with a tandem pair. It also means doing a solo out of one of three otters flying non-stop on a busy Perris valley day, with some of those Perris winds kicking up from time to time. It's two distinctly different scenarios, requiring two different skill sets to be successful, but every A license jumper should be ready for either one, or anything in between.

They're not all ready for everything in between. They should be, but they're not.

[billvon 2,396]

>By that time the jumper could have gone to any DZ, and jumped in all
>sorts of different situations and conditions where the extra information
>could come in handy.

Or could have gone to a new DZ and learned new information that will come in handy.

The A license is, at best, a license to learn.

>No instructors watching over them, no oversite from experienced jumpers
>concerned for their well-being, just out in the world left to fend for
>themselves.

Well, that's not quite true. At most DZ's, any A-licensed jumper can ask almost anyone for help and they'll get it, without having to be part of a structured program and without having to pay for it. The big distinction between pre-A license and post-A license is that they have to start asking for it. So in some respects, the A license is a way to cover everything _very_ superficially, so people can ask intelligent questions (and more importantly know when to ask.)

>They're not all ready for everything in between. They should be, but
>they're not.

Not even close. Which is why it's a good idea to get people out of their home DZ to places that have different ways of doing things.

[Marisan 0]

This is how the Military do it.

To quote my JP instructor. "You're about a second behind the aircraft. You'll get away with it here, but on Gnats it will be dangerous, and on Lightnings it will be fatal." So no fast jets and off to helicopters (see, I wasn't actually "chopped"). He was wrong on one point. It would probably have been fatal on the Gnat. Would have loved to have had a try though.

[grimmie 173]

Do we really have a "learning curve, lack of training" issue? Or do we have a "heads up our asses under canopy" issue?
Take a look at all of our canopy collisions that happened in the past few years. Was it newer skydivers or older, over 1,000 jump skydivers involved?
How many of us have asked a jumper to slow down under canopy? How many of us have seen that same jumper injure or kill themselves in the manner we predicted to them?
This is a much bigger problem than USPA only can fix. It has to start with each jumper, and each DZO.
I'm all for canopy courses for newer jumpers. But what are we going to do with the hundreds of older jumpers under newer canopies? A lot of them are a danger also.
We have to educate the masses and change the current mainstream mindset.
We have to have more training than "here is a photo of the DZ, it's always a left hand pattern, and land here".
We dirt dive the freefall but never dirt dive the canopy ride. We have many different size canopies all aiming for the same LZ. We have to train jumpers how to handle the various landing scenarios.
I agree though, if we start training them early on canopy skills and pattern safety, we will create a safer future skydiving environment.

[DSE 3]

Quote

But on the issue, I personally think USPA would better serve its' membership by focusing on things like advanced training, including the instructional side as warranted, and a sh*tload less on other stuff, primarily the group membership program.

Of course I'm talkin' recommendations, not BSR's. The ones we have now are plenty.

I agree. When I see the training that is more or less requisite in Australia, the canopy control processes they have in the Scandinavian countries... USPA could do a lot to look at their methods.
Ed Scott handed me a line of thought regarding insurance, litigation concerns, and manufacturer concerns if we had a progression chart like they use in Scandinavia. I don't know that I buy it, but one thing is for certain; We have more canopy collisions here than other countries do. We have more lift capacity too, and perhaps those numbers are relevant.
I've attended a canopy control course in Australia, and it was very well done with a great deal more focus on collision avoidance, clouds, etc. I wish we had something from USPA like the APF offers.

Curiously enough, I feel PIA offers better information, access to information, and manufacturer-sponsored presentations at the conference than the USPA offers its membership.
But...it's not that deeply attended.
USPA has access to the Chris Gay Canopy Control training DVD that covers a huge amount of information as well. Perhaps they could do something with that.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Do we really have a "learning curve, lack of training" issue? Or do we have a "heads up our asses under canopy" issue?

Both

Quote

This is a much bigger problem than USPA only can fix. It has to start with each jumper, and each DZO.

Yes, the fundamental problem.

Quote

I'm all for canopy courses for newer jumpers.

Put me solidly in the camp of Dave's idea of mandatory training prior to issuing any license.

Quote

But what are we going to do with the hundreds of older jumpers under newer canopies? A lot of them are a danger also.

Don't forget the older jumpers who know it all already, the Mad Skillz dupes, the skygods, the instructors who only do freefall skills and the egotists.
What I'm seeing is that it's those guys who are doing the stupid shit. I'm seeing DZOs letting them get away with it. I'm seeing DZOs who only pay lip service to safety and only enforce "rules" on those who are not in "the clique"...and even that on a haphazard basis.

Quote

We have to educate the masses and change the current mainstream mindset.... I agree though, if we start training them early on canopy skills and pattern safety, we will create a safer future skydiving environment

Train the youngsters now and some of them will retain the mindset for a while. The experienced ones? HA! Call me a cynic but I don't see much progress with that group.

Geezuz, I'm depressed.

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

[peek 20]

Quote

We have more canopy collisions here than other countries do. We have more lift capacity too, and perhaps those numbers are relevant.

Not only are they relevant, they are related.

While I don't have the statistics in front of me, I would guess that people are seldom colliding under canopy after having jumped from a C182. (Someone correct me if they have statistics that show otherwise.)

As a number of previous posters have pointed out, canopies have changed. In general they are faster now.

The way loads are flown has changed too, but in a way that results in less safety, not more. I remember the days of multiple passes, but we don't seem to do that anymore.

Combine the two changes and it is no wonder that there are more canopy collisions.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

We have more canopy collisions here than other countries do. We have more lift capacity too, and perhaps those numbers are relevant.

Not only are they relevant, they are related.

While I don't have the statistics in front of me, I would guess that people are seldom colliding under canopy after having jumped from a C182. (Someone correct me if they have statistics that show otherwise.)

As a number of previous posters have pointed out, canopies have changed. In general they are faster now.

The way loads are flown has changed too, but in a way that results in less safety, not more. I remember the days of multiple passes, but we don't seem to do that anymore.

Combine the two changes and it is no wonder that there are more canopy collisions.

So,
~we have a more broad access to single-load lift capacity than we did when the training was created.
~We have faster canopies and arguably higher wingloadings.
~We have fewer passes in those larger planes (presumably due in part to the fact that canopies can now fly further, in addition to fuel savings)
~Swooping/high performance turns are a greater component than they were 10 years ago.

As a USPA BOD member, can you offer a reason that the USPA doesn't appear to see a valid path to better canopy training, standardized instruction for all skydivers as either part of a license progression or as part of a general learning program sponsored by USPA?

[Fast 0]

All of the stuff in this thread just really helps put it home for me that these licenses that USPA issues should actually mean something. I mean, in reality, there aren't a whole lot of reasons to have anything other than an A license if you don't want to be an instructor. So here we have a stepwise licensing program that really has a very limited purpose.

I don't think that most of the people getting into this sport are going to be able to stomach another course that they are going to have to pay someone to teach them how to do before they get their A license. I also think that even at 25 jumps, most of the people we are talking about aren't going to be able to soak up much more information. At least at my dropzone, the program is very progressive and there is a constant building of skills from jump 1 to jump 25. At some point in there they have to learn how to pack too.

If the licensing system had some meaning to it, we could solve some of these problems. I am not huge on forcing people on things, really, but if there were good reasons to progress in the licensing program and good training that was required for you to progress then people would be doing it. If to get a B license you had to sit through a canopy flight course that emphasized on the saftey issues, explained things in more detail, explained about the different types of traffic you're going to encounter, the differences between small and big dropzones, etc, we would all of a sudden have a reason for people to get a B license.

Then, as a dropzone operator, when a guy shows up at your DZ for the first time and has only an A license, you are distinctly aware of the fact that he either hasn't gotten this training or doesn't want to get it and you need to take special care of this person. Maybe it's an issue of figuring out where this person jumps and what they are used to and getting them the safety information they need for your dropzone. Maybe it's saying, hey man, you can't jump here w/o xyz happening first. Maybe the B license becomes the defacto standard to jump at big boogies, who knows. The point is, then it has some kind of meaning. For most jumpers it comes up quick, 50 jumps can be only a few months after getting an A license. I would say that most people don't stray from their home dz in that period.

Then down the road the C license comes along and I don't have an answer for what that should entail, but it does happen to be right around the point where people start wanting to jump camera, wingsuits and all that other distracting stuff. There again, I see some kind of educational opportunity that can make this license have meaning and not just be another number.

We have the basic structure in place for this stuff to happen, I think we just need to take things one step further and actually ensure that the information is getting out there. Back when they made these licenses, getting to those jump numbers took a lot more time and effort. The people you were jumping with didn't demand that you buy their jumps for them and pay them a fee to teach you stuff. Now a lot of them do and I think because of this, people just aren't getting the same kind of education that they did in the past. We have to make sure that people who don't want to or are afraid to seek out the knowledge are getting it.

For the most part it flabbergasts me that the only thing standing in my way from getting the highest license the USPA has to offer is water training, 2 night jumps and what can amount to less than a year in the sport (500 jumps is doable if you have the cash). Somewhere along there some more training should happen if people aren't going to seek it out on there own.

I don't want to encourage more people to try and take even more money from people learning how to skydive, but we do need to offer the education somehow.

~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

[peek 20]

Quote

... can you offer a reason that the USPA doesn't appear to see a valid path to better canopy training...

I'm not sure what USPA should do. The point of my post was to suggest that perhaps large aircraft should be doing multiple passes.

An interesting example is that Jan Meyer once told me that she downsized to a smaller canopy because with the larger one she used to have, she would have jumpers from a later aircraft passing her up and landing before her when she was jumping at a busy DZ like Perris Valley.

We are creating very busy skies with all this activity. Perhaps it is time to pace ourselves and spread the jumpers out a bit.

[Para5-0 0]

I cant say that I totally agree with that reason for a downsize. Especially for a newer jumper.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

... can you offer a reason that the USPA doesn't appear to see a valid path to better canopy training...

I'm not sure what USPA should do. The point of my post was to suggest that perhaps large aircraft should be doing multiple passes.

An interesting example is that Jan Meyer once told me that she downsized to a smaller canopy because with the larger one she used to have, she would have jumpers from a later aircraft passing her up and landing before her when she was jumping at a busy DZ like Perris Valley.

We are creating very busy skies with all this activity. Perhaps it is time to pace ourselves and spread the jumpers out a bit.

Given that multiple passes increase the cost of the jump to the DZO, that'll be a no-go proposition. When you have a DZO demanding that the aircraft turn 3-4 times in an hour, multiple passes are perhaps an effective solution but not a practical answer.
Failing that...step backwards from the exit point and look more at separations, which falls into the world of education/awareness. And we're right back in the lap of USPA at least making an attempt to do something that goes beyond lip service.
If we can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a dozen press releases, surely USPA can find a means of funding education, which is a great deal more effective.

Then again...perhaps the first jumps generated by fatalities are statistically more powerful than the first jumps inspired by press releases.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Even DZs that attempt to follow the ISP to the letter come up short in the area of canopy control. As previously mentioned, trying to teach canopy control in bits and pieces during the student progression is not the ideal situation.

Students are aware that they are not graded on canopy conttrol, and the informaiton they are given isn't directly related to learning objectives on the upcoming jump. Due to this, the student is less likely to see the canopy control portion as a 'lesson', and the instructor is less likey to address it that way. It sounds more like 'tips' for them to file away with all of the other 'tips' they get like 'carry a pullup cord in your pocket' or 'don't pee into the wind'.

Then the coach or instructor is doing it wrong. When I was coaching (and jumping) I would spend the same amount of attention on canopy issues as on freefall. And I would "fail" students on levels G or H if they showed poor canopy control.

If the instructional staff at your DZ is brushing over the canopy control portion of the ISP, then get that proverbial beam out of your eye. You might be surprized at the improvements you see.

- Dan G

[labrys 0]

Quote

And I would "fail" students on levels G or H if they showed poor canopy control.

It's easy to fail a student for poor canopy control. One of the points being made was that you can't usually see if the student is properly practicing the actual canopy progression skills they've been taught while you're negotiating a place in the pattern and landing your own canopy. It's a lot easier to observe that aspect of the coaching from the ground

Owned by Remi #?

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Quote

Which is why I said my opinion is that it should be a pre-B-license requirement

Why B?

Because I don't think there should be any more obstacles put in the way of a jumper attaining their A-license.

I think it is an important goal for students to attain and making it more difficult would be demotivational.

However, I don't believe that anyone should be allowed to progress beyond 'A' without further potentially life-saving canopy tuition. I agree with the sentiment that perhaps an A license should come with some further restrictions such as not jumping at boogies or with any more that a 4 way (for example) as an added incentive to get the 'B' as well as for safety reasons.

Just my opinion. I seem to be the only low-timer chipping in on this discussion so I am prepared to be swayed by others arguments.

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

~ CanuckInUSA

[DanG 1]

Quote

One of the points being made was that you can't usually see if the student is properly practicing the actual canopy progression skills they've been taught while you're negotiating a place in the pattern and landing your own canopy. It's a lot easier to observe that aspect of the coaching from the ground

I agree to a point, but it's pretty hard to tell if a student is doing a rear riser turn vs. a toggle turn from 4000ft away, too. I took two professional canopy control courses, and neither one involved the instructor watching me do my canopy work from the ground with a pair of binoculars. The only part that was videoed/directly observed was the landing pattern work. That's the same thing that should be happening with ISP canopy instruction. The only way to avoid self-reporting of canopy practice is to jump with the student and do no-touch CRW. I think that's beyond what is practical for primary canopy control instruction.

- Dan G

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

The only way to avoid self-reporting of canopy practice is to jump with the student and do no-touch CRW. I think that's beyond what is practical for primary canopy control instruction.

Yes, yes Yes! It could be done if more people with knowledge and experience would take those young jumpers under their wing and jump 1-on-1 with them.

Air-air radio and video would be simply great!

Not so very hard to do.

On the down side, it's very discouraging to spend so much time with the youngsters only to have them see and hear the "experienced" bozos doing and talking stupid shit.

You experienced guys...Please know and understand that YOUR ACTIONS are setting an example for the youngsters. YOU doing stupid shit gets them thinking that they can do it too.

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

[robinheid 0]

Quote

USPA Executive Director Ed Scott used his “Gearing Up” editorial in the October 2010 Parachutist magazine to discuss the high percentage of skydiving fatalities in the US in 2010 attributed to canopy issues of one sort or another. He noted that of the 16 fatalities through August, 12 were “canopy-related”.



If we are going to get a handle on canopy accidents, we need to ask the right questions. .

There is only one right question to ask and that is:

WTF are we doing teaching people how to freefall before we teach them to fly a canopy without a RADIO?"

The root of the problem is our freefall-based training system. PERIOD.

Until we discard it and return to a system that teaches fundamental PARACHUTING SURVIVAL SKILLS before tangenting off on freefall fun skills, we will never get a handle on this problem.

"Adapting" our current freefall-focused training system to increase the canopy training is just plastering more bandaids on a severed artery.

Get a clue, people. This is NOT rocket science: In any dangerous undertaking, you teach the basic survival skills first, then the fun skills.

Until sport parachuting addresses this fundamental flaw in its outlook, attitude and product delivery, we're just gonna keep killing way more people than necessary clinging to that fatal flaw.

Unfortunately, we seem to understand cutting away a canopy that we expected to work but didn't, but can't seem to even be able to notice that the training system we expected to work... doesn't.

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

Unfortunately, we seem to understand cutting away a canopy that we expected to work but didn't, but can't seem to even be able to notice that the training system we expected to work... doesn't.

Maybe you've failed to notice that one is very simple mechanics while the other is a fairly complex process.
If you have so much to say about it, Robin...why not come up with a course/program/syllabus and work to get it adopted?

[danornan 64]

I don't think a canopy training course will makes a difference. Here is a copy of a corrected letter I wrote about a month ago to Jay Stokes....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To: Jay Stokes
President of the USPA

From: Dan Rosenthal
D-11308
USPA #
Date: 08 15 2010

Subject: Unpredictability in the Landing Zone

Jay, It was a pleasure to meet you this past weekend at the event in Deland, honoring Col Joe Kitteringer. This memo is in reference to my conversation with you about what I think might reduce the deaths that are occurring in the Landing Zone (LZ) at many parachute centers throughout the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the past few years, the number of deaths under good parachute has been increasing to greater than 50% of all skydiving fatalities. I think this is mostly because of either high speed landings that go awry (hook turns) that not only affected the skydiver in particular, but too often, an innocent bystander or another skydiver, when it has occurred close to the ground and/or at several hundred feet.

I feel that we have this problem because, unlike airplanes that must land in a particular direction, skydivers land in different directions. This creates an unnecessary hazardous environment.

My solution is a predictable landing pattern at every USPA Member Drop Zone. In order to be an approved “member” USPA drop zone, you would have to agree to abide by this requirement.

The FAA mandates a predictable landing pattern for airplanes. We can do the same for parachutes.

I think that the USPA requires a separation between the regular LZ and a designated high performance LZ but the term separate is very ambiguous and not the same thing as a formal landing pattern.

As an example, I regularly skydive at Z-Hills where there is a separate swoop pond. EVERYONE must walk by it or in front of it to get from the LZ back to the packing area. It is separate but in the path of everyone walking back to pack!


One of the complaints I’ve heard to having a pre determined pattern is the fact that some people might occasionally have to land downwind. My answer to that is to land down wind. It is a skill that every skydiver should know. Skydivers have died because they were afraid to do a downwind landing and turned too low.


A predictable pattern will not stop the deaths, but will reduce them significantly.

At least there will be a plan.. Right now there are no rules, just informal agreement that literally change with the wind!

What is the present landing “rule?”

1. Watch the windsock and chase it all around.
2. Everyone agrees before boarding the airplane on a landing direction and then someone changes their mind in the air.
3. First one down sets the pattern, unless the wind changes!

and on and on...



I land as far from the peas as possible and try to be last down. I’m never in a hurry to get down first. After my parachute opens I don't want any more excitement.

My bottom line question is, “Why not have a predictable landing pattern in the LZ?”

Dano

[DocPop 1]

Quote

My solution is a predictable landing pattern at every USPA Member Drop Zone. In order to be an approved “member” USPA drop zone, you would have to agree to abide by this requirement.

The problem with this is that of enforcement.

There is already a requirement for USPA DZs to separate high performance and "normal" landings, but it doesn't happen in all cases and there don't seem to be any consequences for DZs that ignore it.

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

~ CanuckInUSA

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We have more canopy collisions here than other countries do. We have more lift capacity too, and perhaps those numbers are relevant.

Not only are they relevant, they are related.

While I don't have the statistics in front of me, I would guess that people are seldom colliding under canopy after having jumped from a C182. (Someone correct me if they have statistics that show otherwise.)

As a number of previous posters have pointed out, canopies have changed. In general they are faster now.

The way loads are flown has changed too, but in a way that results in less safety, not more. I remember the days of multiple passes, but we don't seem to do that anymore.

Combine the two changes and it is no wonder that there are more canopy collisions.

So,
~we have a more broad access to single-load lift capacity than we did when the training was created.
~We have faster canopies and arguably higher wingloadings.
~We have fewer passes in those larger planes (presumably due in part to the fact that canopies can now fly further, in addition to fuel savings)
~Swooping/high performance turns are a greater component than they were 10 years ago.

As a USPA BOD member, can you offer a reason that the USPA doesn't appear to see a valid path to better canopy training, standardized instruction for all skydivers as either part of a license progression or as part of a general learning program sponsored by USPA?

About time the useless night jump requirement was replaced by an advanced canopy flying requirement.

...

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

[billvon 2,396]

>About time the useless night jump requirement was replaced by an
>advanced canopy flying requirement.

It's even easier to avoid a HP canopy than it is to avoid a night jump.

[ufk22 32]

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately, we seem to understand cutting away a canopy that we expected to work but didn't, but can't seem to even be able to notice that the training system we expected to work... doesn't.

Maybe you've failed to notice that one is very simple mechanics while the other is a fairly complex process.
If you have so much to say about it, Robin...why not come up with a course/program/syllabus and work to get it adopted?

Doesn't need to be inventend, the program is called
STATIC LINE/IAD PROGRESSION.
Sorry, I realize that this is no longer cool, better to go AFF and then require another course to learn to fly your canopy.

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

[DSE 3]

I suppose I'm not articulating well.
My opinion is that in addition to proper emphasis (not changes) being placed on the canopy portions of the A license requirements, an "advanced" canopy course is another option that has merit.
Teaching "Your rear risers allow you do this" and "your toggles do that" doesn't bridge the disconnect between "what this does" vs "when you'll need this technique."
We grill students in pre-A license training with contrived scenarios, but we don't offer endorsed/consistent mechanisms for post AFF training opportunities.

Clearly, some people "get it" and access Flight 1, Brian Germain, or other canopy coaches to help them learn more techniques, advanced concepts for canopy handling in traffic, winds, or other challenging situations. These people are self-motivated, and that's terrific. Many people have no motivation to learn more. They just want to jump. Taking some of the Flight 1, Germain, or "other" syllabus and experience, tying it to a license, boogie stamp, or "other" should raise awareness, provide motivation for greater safety, and raise the overall skill level of the skydiving population in the USA.

I've been to various boogies all over the US this summer and seen landing directions from all points of the compass. I've seen 3 canopy collisions that thankfully didn't end in a fatality. I've observed people overflying areas that are clearly dangerous due to winds, and watched one fatality because of same. A friend died due to being hit from behind just a few weeks ago.

I cannot help but think that the increase in canopy collisions should be cause for pause and for the USPA to dig into the trend, identify means of reducing it, and education vs rules seem to be the intelligent path. The benefits range from better jumper awareness and skill down to lower insurance costs for DZs.