Wingload BSR.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Or even better yet, find the compromise between the USPA regulation and self policing.

USPA and the BSR's are how we police ourselves, especially when the problem in question goes beyond what is happening at one or two dz's.

Quote

I believe the same is true in the canopy disciplines, CRW, swooping, accuracy. The more skilled pilots become abundant, the more available and accessible training and advice will be shared.

Right. How many more broken femurs, broken hips, broken faces and deaths will there be between now and the time that skilled pilots/teachers are available at every dz in the US?

[billvon 2,400]

>and of course mandatory jump number /wingloading regulation will
> do NOTHING to change that..

Nonsense. People with 500 jumps are, on average, better canopy pilots than people with 100 jumps. To deny that makes your position pretty untenable. It is the basic reason we have jump number requirements for licenses, instructional ratings and things like PRO ratings.

[sarge 0]

>USPA and the BSR's are how we police ourselves, >especially when the problem in question goes >beyond what is happening at one or two dz's.

Perhaps... However, what I'm referring to is the lack of consistency in DZ cultures that results from less clearly defined standards set by by the USPA in BSRs. I'm suggesting a more harmonious acquaintence between the the entities that is less likely open to interpretation and loopholes.

> Right. How many more broken femurs, broken >hips, broken faces and deaths will there be >between now and the time that skilled >pilots/teachers are available at every dz in the US?

My suggestion on that point is intended that, it will do nothing to prevent those things but that it will further force the issue to be brought more into focus if something isn't done. I agree a solution is needed now, not later, but the solution appears elusive, yes?

This is only a prediction, as is yours...

Also, what I was trying to suggest to the entrepeneurs in our viewing audience is that it could be a strategy used by the most skilled and industrious canopy pilots to persuade their Dzo to institute madatory canopy skills courses or canopy skill check-outs as a way of avoiding mandatory minimum canopy sizes or types at their DZ.

The insurance industry will figure out theres a hell of a lot of $$ they can still get out of the DZos yet!!!

--
I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

[rhino 0]

Quote

So suddenly they WILL pay attention?

If more of an emphasis is put on canopy flight yes...

[skybytch 259]

Quote

However, what I'm referring to is the lack of consistency in DZ cultures that results from less clearly defined standards set by by the USPA in BSRs. I'm suggesting a more harmonious acquaintence between the the entities that is less likely open to interpretation and loopholes.

I'm confused. Can you repeat that using smaller words?

Quote

My suggestion on that point is intended that, it will do nothing to prevent those things but that it will further force the issue to be brought more into focus if something isn't done. I agree a solution is needed now, not later,
but the solution appears elusive, yes?

Not to me. The fact that the ISP - which includes extensive canopy control training - is still not being taught at every dz out there proves to me that "education" isn't going to solve the problem fast enough.

imho, for now the solution is to keep high wingloadings out of the hands of newer skydivers until they've either a) gotten enough experience/training to safely land what they want to fly in any conditions or b) gotten to a set number of jumps at which they are considered "expert" and can do what they want. Since a D licensed jumper is considered by most to be an "expert", and soon you'll need 500 jumps to get the D number... 500 jumps seems like a logical cut off point.

[mikkey 0]

This thread is now back exactly where we have been before. Everybody is personalising it: "look at me I have x jumps and y wing loading and I am perfectly safe" and we have of course the argument: "regulation is not flexible enough - education is" bla, bla, bla, bla.
Well, the issue is:
1) There are lot of regulations on the jump plane, on the ground, in regard to the equipment (why can't I jump PdF products in the US - it is not TSO's). and in regard to what you can do in free fall (including NUMBER OF JUMPS) and what it takes to get a licenses including stuff like displays (INCLUDING NUMBER OF JUMPS). But we do not want to regulate canopies even with the number of people getting killed and injured?
2) You want to do anything about it and you want something that actually can be implemented? Well you have to do include some kind of ratio between jumps and wing loading. It is not perfect but it is the only way.
I find it sad if the sport is getting "back" to a reputation of being suicidal. I actually been called a bad father because I took up jumping again. I want to be in a safe sport (or as safe as possible).

I am now in my mid-40's, when I first started I was 19. I can tell you that I was a young fool at the time who knew it all, was able to do it all and I nearly kille myself. I have a very different attitude to the sport now and I still make mistakes and have "brain locks" - which is why I keep my wing loading conservative. So when some 100 jump wonder aged around 20 writes here how perfectly safe they are under a HP canopy - I just remember how I used to think.
Anyway, like it or not, Ron has the only sensible approach even if it is not perfect - if you want to do something about the problem.

PS: Have a collegue who also jumps - and has several hundre jumps. Jumps a Sabre 150 conservatively loaded aroudn 1.1 I think. He wanted to down size until recently. Then had a bad landing due to a simple mistake on landing - and got very bruised (and lucky it was not more then that). He has now put the down sizing on hold. Go figure...

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[sarge 0]

Quote

I'm confused. Can you repeat that using smaller words?

That the BSRs could be more specific to recommend wingloadings/canopy design related to assessed skill level achievements. Additionally, based on yours and my observation that education is not a sole solution to heal this 'canopy epidemic.' That furthermore, Dzos could be 'influenced' to support the BSRs. Such as what I have already suggested and in one way you have reiterated:

"500 jumps seems like a logical cut off point." ~SkyBytch

Geez!? where do I sound like I don't wish we could stop bytching and moaning and make something happen? I said before, I think its a pandoras box. Our friendly local Dz seems like the most logical and direct source to throw a tourniquet on this gushing artery! But for some reason, theres a lot of them that are just winging-it, yes? or maybe not?

All I'm saying in effect is, there is no substitute for experience and training can make the learning experience a lot less painful or fatal. I always say its not what you know; its what you don't know thats going to kill you!

Your doing your part, I'm doing what I can, Ron his, et al, and there you have it... Just talk... opinions... so what?

For now, I'm gonna watch my ass. I'm gonna keep on trying to keep an open mind and be grateful for the freedoms that we all enjoy until the rules change, then I'll adapt to those. No worries. If its about trying to keep you or me or that other jumper from becoming a statistic; I'll go along with it. Those a lot wiser and more experienced than you and I can't impliment a workable/practical solution to this problem yet...

--
I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

[Hooknswoop 19]

I originally posted this under "Talking to a dead man". I have made changes and updates (the real meat is near the bottom). Sorry, again, for it being so discombobulated.

Different people advance their canopy control skills at different rates.

Different wing loadings, landing altitudes (Density Altitudes), and types of canopies, all result in different levels and types of performance a canopy produces.

The landing areas are different from DZ to DZ.

The higher the performance the canopy, the better the pilot needs to be to safely fly it (and maintain the same margin for error).

Good reactions, an understanding of aerodynamics that apply to canopies (How a canopy flies, theory), good depth perception, the ability to accurately evaluate your skills, eye-hand coordination, dexterity, and good situation awareness are important attributes to becoming a good canopy pilot.

The above skills aren't worth much without experience. Experience isn't worth much without the above skills.

The higher the performance the canopy, the easier it is to get injured.

The lower performance the canopy, the less likely the pilot will be injured. (An AFFI I knew would land his Manta 288 with the brakes release and not touch the toggles. He would PLF and get up.)

Too many skydivers feel they are the exception, better than their jumps numbers would suggest they are.

Too many skydivers want to be "the cool skydiver swooping down the beer line" before they are ready, in an effort to 'fit in' and be 'cool'. Just skydiving impresses 'whuffo' friends, to impress skydiving friends, you have to stand out, be better than your friends were when they had the number of jumps you do.

A canopy control class can improve a pilot's skills, reduce the chances of an incident and possibly allow a pilot to learn at a faster rate. This is not universal, and the impact depends on the instructor, the syllabus, and the student. They can be difficult to attend (cost/travel/time/availability).

Landing fatalities and injuries are bad for the jumper involved and the sport as a whole.

Self-regulation is better for the sport than if the FAA where to step in to make and enforce regulations. (Not likely to happen).

Fatalities and, to a lesser extent, injuries bring skydiving to the general public's and the FAA's attention, which is bad.

A high profile incident or high number of incidents may force the FAA to step in. I don't see this as likely, they don't have the budget to hire more people to enforce skydiving regulations.

A canopy regulation based solely on jump numbers would in some cases allow a jumper to progress too fast, some too slow (for their capabilities), and some just right. If such a system was adopted, there might be a rush to downsize and be 'grand fathered in', resulting in people flying canopies they are not ready for and resulting in the opposite goal than intended, i.e. more instead of less landing injuries/fatalities.

A canopy regulation that allowed waivers would have to have designated, qualified people to sign off the waiver. Not all DZ"s have qualified people that can make this judgment. Also a 'Canopy I/E' would be forced to say "no" a lot, making them unpopular/disliked, similar to S & TA's today. (I know that not all S & TA's are disliked, but it does happen where an S & TA has to say "no" and the person holds it against them) Not a job I would volunteer for, BTDT.

A DZO may choose to simply 'cap' the wing loading of their jumpers, avoiding having to make a decision about a pilot's skill and the suitability of the canopy they are/want to jump. (On this one, if a DZO doesn't want to address this issue and institutes a 'cap' (especially a ridiculously low cap) on wing loading, then either let the S & TA/Chief Instructor handle it, drop your GM ("Keeping skydivers skydiving"), or don't run a DZ.)

How many DZO's/S &TA's ground someone that shows up at their DZ and is obviously in over their head with their canopy, loosing their business? How many S & TA's are over-ruled by the DZO so the DZ can sell jump tickets?

Applying a fixed system to a range of people/abilities would be unfair to some. Jumping a canopy that is a size or two (or more) larger than the person can handle doesn't create an unsafe situation, jumping a canopy a size or two (or more) smaller than the person can handle does result in an unsafe situation.

If you are bored on your canopy, get your pro-rating with it. See how good you really are with it.

Landing injuries usually only injure the pilot making the mistake, they rarely injure others.

Tracking skills are not keeping pace with canopy performance.

Aircraft pilots are regulated because they can affect the public's safety. There is a big difference between a single seat and two seat ultra-light.

Creating a flexible system requires qualified evaluators and can be more work as people challenge it believing they are the exception. This is basically what happens now, and varies from DZ to DZ, but is informal with no guidelines. Also, the Instructor, DZO, S &TA, I/E, Chief Instructor, etc, must first watch the jumper fly and land to make a call on the pilot's abilities. I may not be possible for someone to watch the pilot for a few jumps and by then may be too late.

The more downsizing is regulated and restricted the less injuries/fatalities there will be. The more regulations and restrictions there are, the more they cut into the freedom and enjoyment and personal responsibility of skydiving. There has to be a happy medium between freedom and regulation. I think this issue parallels the much larger National Security/Personal Freedom debates sparked by 9/11. How much personal freedom are we willing to sacrifice in the name of security? The United States accepts 50,000 deaths each year on the roadways as acceptable for the freedom of travel and the speeds allowed. How many little crosses do you see on the sides of roads? How many serious accidents have you slowly driven past? How much more are you willing to pay for a safer car?

Is what we have now insufficient?

If yes, is a good solution to write some guidelines for DZO's/S & TA's/Instructors, etc. to help make these decisions and guide jumper's decisions on canopy choices?

What should our 'goal' be? How many injuries per jumps is acceptable?

How many fatalities under good canopies per jumps is acceptable?

How do we achieve that goal without eliminating/significantly reducing the freedoms that help make skydiving what it is?

Any sort of change will restrict some people from downsizing, making it unpopular with the people affected. Even some people that wouldn't be affected would be against it, as they would be against any further regulation.

A first jump student focuses on the free-fall, which they perceive as the dangerous part of the skydive (hitting the ground at 120 mph), and put less emphasis on the canopy flight portion of the skydive (which has proven to be more dangerous than free-fall for injuries and fatalities).

Initial Basic canopy training is very important and sets the tone for a skydiver’s advancement as a canopy pilot. I have done numerous “learning tandems”, that focused equally on free-fall skills and canopy skills. These initial tandems, if done correctly, combined with a program that puts at least 50% of the training emphasis on canopy control, produces a student that is better equipped to continue learning at a faster pace. They are also safer than a student that was talked down on the radio a few times, then allowed to fly the canopy unassisted. Additionally, downsizing while under the supervision of an Instructor to within one size of their first canopy closes the gap between the large F-11 student canopy and what skydivers generally buy for their first canopy.

The FAA draws parallels between skydiving and flying, i.e. “Pilot in Command, Parachutist in Command”.

The number of hours a pilot has is considered an indication of their abilities and experience. Flight time is logged under many different categories. Flying a multi-engine aircraft in actual Instrument conditions (in the clouds) demonstrates a higher level of proficiency and capability than flying a single engine VFR (in clear weather). 2000 hours of buzzing around (pleasure flying) in a Cessna 172 VFR isn’t the same as 2000 hours flying a King Air for a charter company. Having 2000 hours in a Cessna 172 doesn’t mean a pilot is ready to hop in a King Air and go fly.

100 skydives over 2 years isn’t the same as 100 skydives over 6 months.

To be licensed to go fly a Cessna 172 around takes a minimum of 40 flight hours, a medical (that has to be kept current) and a written test. Then an oral and practical test with a Designated Examiner. The test isn’t a 20 question test that you can keep taking (for free) over and over until you pass, it is something like 60 questions from a bank of 700-ish questions and it costs $60.00 (usually) to take it. If you fail, you have to get signed off by a CFI to take it again, and there is a minimum time between tests. If a pilot wishes to fl a complex airplane (retractable gear, flaps, and a constant speed propeller, Driver, correct any of this that is wrong), they must receive additional training from a CFI and get an endorsement from said CFI in their logbook. If a pilot wishes to fly a High performance, multi-engine aircraft, or fly under IFR flight rules, etc, it requires additional training to reflex the additional complexity/speed/environment that the pilot will be operating in. In addition the Instructor must have additional training to teach other pilots thee more advanced skills.

The USPA “A” license card has spaces for certain canopy drills/maneuvers, that must be performed prior to getting an “A” license. Until these maneuvers are completed, the skydiver is limited to jumping with a Coach or Instructor, or solo. This is a change from the old “A” license requirements, which were limited to accuracy requirements. USPA recognized the need for additional initial canopy training. The requirement was implemented (initially the ISP was mandatory, but DZO’s protested and the USPA folded and made the ISP optional). Once the “A” license is complete, the only additional license requirements for canopy control is accuracy. The 1-20 jump canopy training gap was identified and fixed. The 20+ canopy training gap has been identified (it is hard to argue that canopy skills are keeping pace with canopy development and use) but has not been fixed.

I believe a combination of regulations and education is the solution to reducing the number of injuries and fatalities caused by mistakes made while flying fully functional canopys

I propose USPA develop a series of canopy skills requirements for the “B”, “C”, and “D” licenses. These requirements would need to be flex-able enough to allow for aggressive canopy pilots and conservative canopy pilots alike. They would include canopy class room training, practical exercises, a written and practical test. I also propose USPA implement (grand-fathering in current license holders), canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the “A” through “D” license. As each license is obtained, the skydiver may jump higher performance canopys. These restrictions would have to be well researched, taking into account canopy type, landing altitude, wing loading, etc. The canopy matrix restrictions could be waiver-able to a certain, defined degree to allow a skydiver that wishes to advance more quickly, puts in the effort, and demonstrates the ability. A skydiver could also earn a ‘canopy restricted “B” through “D” license if they choose not to demonstrate the proficiency required for the next license, similar to a VFR commercial pilots license, for example.

When USPA implemented the “A” license canopy skills requirements, they correctly figured that Instructors were qualified to teach these basic canopy skills, without further training or certification of the Instructor. As a skydiver progresses through their skydiving careers, their initial Instructor that taught them their basic canopy control skills may not be qualified or have the skills to teach more advance canopy control without further training and/or certification.

Therefore, I further propose the creation of the Canopy Instructor rating (USPA should like this, more $$$ for them). This rating would be similar to the I rating (but without reducing the standard when DZO’s need more staff). Whereas the AFFI/ SLI rating courses focus on free-fall skills and instruction, the CI rating would focus on canopy skills and Instruction. A weekend course attended after completing a pre-course card, where a Canopy Instructor Candidate learns how to teach advanced canopy control (any instruction post-AFF is advanced in my book), and must demonstrate the ability to perform and teach advanced canopy control. A thought would be to simply add canopy piloting skills and canopy instruction skills to the current I rating courses. This brings up the dilemma of a great free-fall Instructor and flyer that can’t fly a canopy or teach canopy piloting very well not being able to teach free-fall skills, what a waste. Also, a CI would not be working with pre “A” license students, but licensed skydivers, and don’t require the free-fall skills and teaching ability to teach advance canopy skills. So the CI rating would be similar to the Coach rating, except focusing on canopy skills, not free-fall skills, and be as difficult to earn as the AFFI rating used to be.

Thinking about this from another angle, how would you (a hypothetical question), as an Instructor (you may be an Instructor, we haven’t gotten to the hypothetical part yet), take someone from 0 skydives to 1000, downsizing and progressing as a canopy pilot, with the eventual goal of high performance landings, with the goal of zero injuries along the way? Assume you can spend as much time as necessary in the classroom and jump with them as much as you need to reach this goal. Your ‘student’ can afford to downsize/side step canopys as you see fit.

In response to an earlier post:

I watched Rhino (Rob) fly recently in CA, last time I have seen him fly before that was several years ago in TX. He tried to toggle hook a Tri 150. It didn't go so good. I berated him, he got mad, then he calmed down, realized that high speed landings aren't easy and set about learning. He currently flys very well, with his first reaction is to abort or bail out of a hook turn, instead of pushing a marginal situation. I never saw him get in the corner or show any signs that he is in over his head on his canopy. He has put in the effort to fly the canopy he does. He accepts criticism without letting ego get in the way, heck he asks for people to point out his mistakes. He has really calmed down and focused, if he continues with his current attitude and enthusiasm, I think he will continue to do very well. That is the key most people lack, they don't invest the tremendous amount of effort required.

This is a tremendously difficult, emotional, and complicated issue.

Hook

[skybytch 259]

Quote

That the BSRs could be more specific to recommend wingloadings/canopy design related to assessed skill level achievements.

The problem with assessed skill level achievements is that they can be faked/lied about. I know several PRO rated jumpers who got "signed off" without ever making the required jumps - both for their original rating and for recurrency. What's to stop Joe Instructor from signing off his 100 jumps buddy for something smaller when the newbie still can't land what he has?

Quote

Just talk... opinions... so what?

In Ron's case he's done far more than talk - he's already contacted USPA about the problem and possible solutions. By the end of this weekend I'll be able to claim the same; my letter will be going off to each of the members of the S&T committee on Sunday. I know of at least one more person planning to do the same.

Anyone who supports either wingloading to jump number regulation/guidelines/recommendations or increased canopy control training requirements or both should put their money where their mouth is and get their letters and emails out. Those who feel that this is all about grumpy old people trying to limit their freedom because of a few dead bodies should also express their views to the S&T committee.

We ain't gonna solve anything here; on that I agree with you 100%.

[rhino 0]

Quote

Therefore, I further propose the creation of the Canopy Instructor rating

Hell of an idea!!

[robskydiv 0]

Why not? I mean something has to be done.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Hell of an idea!!

I agree.

Thanks for posting a well thought out canopy education proposal, Derek. Mind if I incorporate some of it in my letter to the S&T committee?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Have at it. Maybe you can put the parts you want into a 'read-able' form. I think I will send one too.

Hook

[Michele 1]

Lisa, can you post the addresses for the S & T committee? I'll be happy to contribute my .02...and that is all I've got - no experience in this sport, so I don't think my voice will carry much weight...but rather a squeak than silence, you know?

Thanks!

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[PhreeZone 15]

You know... I think this might just be a good enough cause to get this Canopy Nazi up and writing his first message to the BOD and the S&T committee.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Zenister 0]

Thanks Hook thats what ive been much less eloquently argue about, basing regulation on demonstrated ability, and not a simple numbers progression.

At 500 jumps you magically become an "adult skydiver" and can now fly whatever canopy you wish???

just in case anyone thinks this is about age it really isnt at all.

although younger skydivers (but certainly not only skydivers) DO want to be able to take higher risks, and find the edges of the envelope more than an older individual (who more likely to have kids and other responsibilities with higher priority than their need to take risks.)

and honestly wouldnt live my life as i do if i had other obligations however i do not, so i take risks everyday that others might think silly

most people think jumping out of planes is an unreasonable risk.
most skydivers dont base jump.
most rock climbers dont freeclimb.
out of all the people who drive motorcycles & autos only a very small percentage chose to do so at race tracks at high speeds....etc etc..

its really about proving you have the skills and knowledge to be able to fly in the manner you are with a reasonable level of safety. Defining reasonable is the very tricky part.

seems like the more we try to sell skydiving as something everyones grandmother should come do, the farther away we get from why people jumped out of airplanes in the first place.

"pencil whipping" anything is wrong, and will still occur no matter what the regs say, there are dishonest people everywhere but i'm not sure what that really has to do with this issue.

is everyone going to be content if for example in 2006 (after this BSR is emplaced and "fully enforced") when a comparable number of people as 2002 with jump numbers averaging 550 - 700 are injured & or die instead? or will we once again raise the out cry over the number of deaths and up the limits?

why not just have larger print on the waiver you sign where it says you understand you can die doing this?? and then emphasis that the more you know about it the less likely it is to happen...after that its all up to you to decide what risks you are willing to take.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Ron 7]

Quote

(And yes, I know there already are requirements, but they are easily lied about, whereas something like
water training is not...something along those lines is what I mean

Water training is not easy to lie about?

Well I got my water traing at 1800 jumps almost 5 years after it was signed off...

So anything that requires just a sign off....Will get just signed off by some. Look at "pencil packs"

Thats why regulation is needed..It will get ignored at times as well...But it is harder to do if people actually look.

Ron

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

and of course mandatory jump number /wingloading regulation will do NOTHING to change that.. canopy control
instruction WILL..

Not if people don't do it...So you would have to make it manditory...

I think Michele wrote that people made fun of her for taking a canopy control class...As long as that happens people will not just do it unless they have to. Also..As Rob pointed out just because people were tought...Does not mean they will learn, or remember...

So how do you plan to make it manditory, AND MAKE them learn and remember?

And it has to be a nationally used program...which even the current ISP is not.

So regulation will work...
Peer pressure has not, in fact it most of the time is the reverse.

USPA current training program is not being used everywhere...And it has been pointed out that people don't learn anyway. So training does not seem to work either.

But if you have a plan that covers all this...please let me know.

Bill, if you can come up with a "checkout" I am all for it...But the best I have seen so far is make them qualify for a PRO to be able to downsize....Hell the program already is there.

Ron

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

[RozeAY 0]

I agree that instruction is the best answer to canopy issues. The problem is that nobody will go out and make it happen. Instead, everybody sits around on dz.com and talks about how great it would be. Well, Ron has actually done something about it. And I think it is a very good idea. I also think that Bill's opt out option is an excellent idea.

There are obviously going to be tons of people that are going to hate this idea. But I think thats because people just aren't going to be willing to do their time on the 0-500 jump progression. And its because people want to start hooking/swooping/coming in with more speed on their own schedule. Right now, they can do it whenever and however they want. With this new system, they're going to have to wait or learn to do it with proper instruction. And thats why most people aren't going to like it.

I think Ron's proposal is an excellent guide to try and cut down on injury. It gives people plenty of time on lower wingloadings to learn to fly a canopy on their own. And for the people that don't want to or can't take a course or learn from a coach, it gives them some time and experience to learn as much as they can on lower wingloadings.

Here is the beauty of the "opt out system." If you want to really learn to fly your canopy through a course/coach/whatever the system may be, then with that coach you can opt out of the BSR requirements. With the coach's assistance you could get placed on another canopy track. But the key is to basically be an apprentice to the coach. It shouldn't be a free for all where once you take this course you have free reign to jump whatever you want. I think you should work with this coach. Together you would come up with a progression and what you should do and be able to do on each before you advance.

This way people who are serious about canopy flight can get coaching and learn to do higher performance stuff the right way. At the same time, those who want to do the same high-p stuff but aren't willing to learn the right way will have to wait until they have a little more experience. This will force them to learn on lower wingloadings before getting into higher ones. And finally for those people who don't care so much about higher performance landings, like me for example, won't really be affected.

I have 475 jumps with wingloadings of 1.2 and 1.3 with gear, weights, etc (which is my most recent downsize). I fit into Ron's proposal and am even under it. And these are just fine for me. Even if I was in a situation where I would have to fly a certain canopy a little longer than I would like I would still be fine with it. Because I know my abilities and flying x canopy a little longer isn't going to kill me. But there are some people out there that letting them get to x canopy too soon will kill them. So even if this BSR would affect you in a way you wouldn't like, hopefully there would be the opt out system so you could do something about it but more importantly it would be helping to save lives. Nothing else has worked this far. Hopefully this is something that will.

[lauras 0]

Hey Hotpants.

1) What the hell are you doing posting at 3:54AM? Don't you ever sleep?!?

2) Additional BSRs re: canopy downsizing would probably be very helpful for the majority, but you'll always run into the "Rules? I don't need no stinkin' rules" crowd. Not a goddamn thing anyone can do about them except hope that they won't pound in right in front of you. I don't think it would matter what sport those particular people were involved in either ... reaction would be the same.

See ya Sunday at the crack house - I mean tunnel.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

just in case anyone thinks this is about age it really isnt at all.

although younger skydivers (but certainly not only skydivers) DO want to be able to take higher risks, and find the edges of the envelope more than an older individual (who more likely to have kids and other responsibilities with higher priority than their need to take risks.)

While I mostly agree that jumpers over a certain age tend to be more conservative than jumpers under a certain age, when I say "younger" jumpers I'm not talking about physical age, I'm talking about time in sport. Calling someone with 400 jumps a student or novice doesn't seem right... "younger" isn't the best word to use but it's better than some others.

Most jumpers hit 500 at around 2 - 3 years in the sport. By the time you've been in the sport for 2 - 3 years you've likely seen some shit (or had shit happen to you), so yeah, I'd think around 500 jumps to be a magic number.

And considering that within a few months you'll have to have 500 jumps to get a USPA D license - often referred to as an "expert" or "master" license... yeah, 500 jumps is about the point you magically become an adult skydiver.

I think even those of us strongly supporting this idea agree that there are some younger jumpers who will be able to safely exceed the proposed requirements. Hook's proposal addresses this by allowing for individual waivers for those who show the desire and put forth the effort required to safely do so.

It also addresses jumpers like me who will never go above a 1.2 loading, ever. I think all jumpers seeking a higher license should be required to attend the canopy control training for that license instead of allowing for canopy restricted licenses though. Everyone should know how to do a high performance landing - the ability to safely bleed off the extra speed may be a lifesaver someday (think downwind in 10 mph winds on a bad spot).

zenister... please join us in writing to the S&T committee and let them know your opinion on this. There is no easy answer and they're going to need to hear from all sides.

[samp76 0]

Ron,

But what is there to keep skydivers from keeping their current canopy loaded @ 1:1 for 500 jumps and then go to to a w/l of 2:1??

-Sam-

Let go of the NUT!!

[rhino 0]

What is there?

Nothing other than the DZO. Hopefully they have prepared themselves.

[Ron 7]

Quote

But what is there to keep skydivers from keeping their current canopy loaded @ 1:1 for 500 jumps and
then go to to a w/l of 2:1??

Nothing....

But what I am wishing is that they will learn enough not to kill themselves....The problem is right now they can get them at 100 jumps.

This delays them while they learn some more basic life saving skills.

Do you not find it interesting that only one guy with more than 500 jumps died last year "hooking it"...And that guy was stoned?

Ron

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

[jlmiracle 7]

I think before anyone downsizes they have to watch a video. "Down Sizing Gone Bad", also to include "Hook Turns Gone Bad". I think when ANY jumper decides to downsize, and or try hook turns, they have to watch the video, blood, guts, bones, and all.

There has to be enough video out there of bad incidents that can be complied.

It sucks to see that stuff but that's reality and sometimes just hearing about people's mistakes aren't enough, you need to see them.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.