0
Ron

Wingload BSR.

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote


So your rules rely on common sense and instructor intervention. But if people use common sense and instructors intervene, what is the need for the rules? There's a paradox.



There is, but apparently common sense seems to fail a lot where canopy choice is concerned. Or wingsuiting. Or camera jumping. Or using large amounts of lead with swooping. Or pulling as low as you want.


\

And suddenly common sense and instructor intervention return when someone has X00 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

A complete klutz could be approved provided she had made enough jumps.



Yes. But unlike right now, she'd have to have actually made some jumps before she'd be able to downsize.

Right now, anybody, klutz or "natural talent", with any number of jumps can buy anything they want.

Which is an overall better outcome? Letting anyone buy anything, so there are more klutzs sharing the sky with you? Or limiting what low jump number klutzs can buy so there are fewer klutzs sharing the sky with you?

Quote

I don't have a suggestion/solution, but more regulation won't fix it, since we can easily opt out of the regulatory body.



We can't opt out of the FAA. One mad mother with connections pointing out to the right legislator that the organization tasked with self-policing the sport has chosen not to police what is a major source of injury and death within the sport could easily change who is doing the regulating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Additonally if the USPA created a BSR limiting wingloading, they would open themselves, the DZs, and the manufacturers up to lawsuits from anyone being hurt or killed under "safe" canopies.



You mean like they did when the instituted the USPA Tandem Instructor rating? And have failed to enforce a standard high enough to give the manufacturers cause to discontinue their ratings as originally planned?

Ooops.

You mean like the have with the wingsuit BSR?

Or with minimum pull altitudes?
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We can't opt out of the FAA. One mad mother with connections pointing out to the right legislator that the organization tasked with self-policing the sport has chosen not to police what is a major source of injury and death within the sport could easily change who is doing the regulating.



The FAA doesn't give a damn about us as long as we're only hurting and killing our own. Neither does the general public so it's not good political fodder. As far as most are concerned it's simply "Darwin at work."

Were we to start injuring and killing a high number of spectators, that might change things.

While the urge to "do something" is generally highest after an incident, it's also about the worst time as it's mostly emotions based.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


So your rules rely on common sense and instructor intervention. But if people use common sense and instructors intervene, what is the need for the rules? There's a paradox.



There is, but apparently common sense seems to fail a lot where canopy choice is concerned. Or wingsuiting. Or camera jumping. Or using large amounts of lead with swooping. Or pulling as low as you want.

\

And suddenly common sense and instructor intervention return when someone has X00 jumps?


Seems so. We don't see as many landing-related incidents in the 1000+ jumps range as we do (way) below that, do we? Aside from swooping, which is an extra risk a jumper can choose to take.

I think if you stay in the sport for 1000+ jumps you did something right, you have probably seen more "stuff" than you wanted to and you have the experience to decide what you want to jump, yourself. You've passed the most dangerous phase in skydiving, IMO.

I'm not a big fan of a large number of rules myself, but our canopy rules are just about the path I took (I was 25 jumps faster or so) so they didn't bother me that much, aside from the reserve thing: nothing is mentioned about reserve wingloadings, and I was allowed to jump a PD113 as a reserve just fine @150lbs, but not as a demo-main :S Oh well, no rule is perfect :P

ciel bleu,
Saskia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>It represents an abject failure to look out for the best interests of the
>sport, and the association.

Given the strong opposition to any such regulation, I don't think it indicates that at all. Indeed, if one day we woke up and USPA said "no jumper under 500 jumps can jump anything smaller than a 120" I think people would (rightly) be annoyed.

It's worth discussing. But the solution is neither simple nor obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote


So your rules rely on common sense and instructor intervention. But if people use common sense and instructors intervene, what is the need for the rules? There's a paradox.



There is, but apparently common sense seems to fail a lot where canopy choice is concerned. Or wingsuiting. Or camera jumping. Or using large amounts of lead with swooping. Or pulling as low as you want.


\

And suddenly common sense and instructor intervention return when someone has X00 jumps?



Seems so. We don't see as many landing-related incidents in the 1000+ jumps range as we do (way) below that, do we? Aside from swooping, which is an extra risk a jumper can choose to take.



Who kept count? Where are the data?

I hear that claim every time this comes up, but no-one ever seems to have the data to confirm it.
...

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

Given the strong opposition to any such regulation, I don't think it indicates that at all. Indeed, if one day we woke up and USPA said "no jumper under 500 jumps can jump anything smaller than a 120" I think people would (rightly) be annoyed.



The opposition, at least here, seems to either just be playing devils advocate or is playing the 'personal freedom' card, and neither of them is acknowledging the fact that this type of regulation has been implemented, with success, in other countries. Unlike many of the issues debated here, this one does indeed have real-world proof that it is effective in reducing the number of open canopy incidents.

The opposition in the USPA, well that's anyones guess. I'm not sure how follwing a proven method to reduce the number of open canopy incidents, the biggest catagory among US fatalities, is helping anyone, but I'm sure the BOD has their reasons (however stupid or self-serving they may be).

In terms of people being annoyed, I'm annoyed by the security at my local commercial airport. I flew for years without taking off my shoes for anyone, but now that's not the case. Things have changed. Things will always change.

The reality is, only a small group of people for a short period of time will be 'annoyed' by the existance of such a BSR, those being the people with between 50 and 500 jumps at the time the BSR is implemented.

Seven years since this thread was started. IN seven years, an entire generation of jumpers has come and gone. There's a 'goodbye to skydiving' thread in the bonfire from a guy with 5 years in the sport. He began jumping, had a blast, was on the wingsuit world record, and quit jumping all within the last 5 years, That's a guy who would have begun and ended jumping with a WL BSR simply being a part of the skydiving landscape. He wouldn't know what life was like without such a BSR.

How many AFF I's and TI's have less than seven years in the sport? 100's I would guess, and every one of them would be teaching and mentoring with a WL BSR as being just another part of skydiving as they wouldn't know skydiving without it.

We can add to those people, all of the jumpers with less than 7 years in the sport who would have learned that WL and canopy control are important enough to be 'on the books', and that fudging the rules can get you busted by the S&TA or the DZO.

Just for kicks, let's consider the group most likely to be 'annoyed' by a WL BSR, those jumpers with 50 to 500 jumps at the time the BSR is implemented, and let's wonder how many of them are still in the sport? Half? A little less? A little more?

I seem to recall a study, or poll, or something a few years back calling 5 or 6 years the 'average' time spent in the sport. So you take all of those 'effected parties', and figure they all would have already had 1 to 3 years in at the time the BSR was implemented, the bulk of the 'effected parties' aren't even jumping anymore.

The whole thing would just be a speed bump in the road of skydiving. Within 3 years of implementing such a BSR anyone negatively effected by the BSR would be far enough along that the BSR doesn't apply to them, and everyone who started jumping within that 3 years would just think it's business as usual.

It's a proven way to reduce open canopy incidents, and represents almost zero cost to anyone, be it the individual jumper or the USPA, to implement. Where's the downside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Who kept count? Where are the data?

I hear that claim every time this comes up, but no-one ever seems to have the data to confirm it.



I looked at the records for low turns/impacts with the ground in the US on sport rigs and went back the last 20 incidents. I only included fatalities where both jump numbers and canopy size were recorded.

Here are the facts:

Mean # jumps - 1,823 (15-7,000)
Mean canopy size - 129 (84-280)
Incidents with >1,000 jumps - 60%
Incidents with <1,000 jumps - 40%

Now we have some numbers to discuss.
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The FAA doesn't give a damn about us as long as we're only hurting and killing our own. Neither does the general public so it's not good political fodder. As far as most are concerned it's simply "Darwin at work."



Not true. We're on the FAA's radar any time some blatant FAR violation circulates around YouTube enough for a staffer to notice. Then Randy O. at USPA HQ hears about it.

Examples: Wingsuits through and around clouds, and they really got excited when they saw them swooping tandems.

Aircraft exceeding limitations on descent.

Tandem Demos into Stadiums.

Helicopter jumps with BASE equipment.

Once we become noticed enough, you can expect the hammer to come down.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Given the strong opposition to any such regulation, I don't think it indicates that at all. Indeed, if one day we woke up and USPA said "no jumper under 500 jumps can jump anything smaller than a 120" I think people would (rightly) be annoyed.



I disagree. I don't see strong opposition at all, except among a few libertarian types, plus a few others who would be affected. This type of opposition did not halt any of the other BSR's, so I see no reason why it should halt this one. Certainly opinions should be listened to, but a vocal minority should not stop progressive change.

I'm sure the USPA has enough smart people to come up with a reasonable limit that's far more comprehensive than an arbitrary cutoff. Brian Germain's chart is a great starting point.

_Am
__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It's been seven years since this thread was started. Still no BSR to help keep noobs off canopies they don't have the skill to handle. .



How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test?



Bill's checklist in the safety section would be a good start.

flat turn 90 degrees at 50 feet
flare turn at least 45 degrees
land crosswind and in no wind
land reliably within a 10 meter circle
initiate a high performance landing with double front risers and front riser turn to landing
land on slight uphills and downhills
land with rear risers
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



The issue addressed in the BSR is less flying a wingsuit than not properly rigging one and falling out.



As the person who proposed and argued for the wingsuit BSR, this is not accurate.
Because a ingsuit manufacturer was steadfastly against a USPA Wingsuit Instructor (or Advanced Coach) Rating, the next logical step was to propose the BSR.
I would gratefully, gladly see the BSR rescinded in favor of a Wingsuit Instructor (or advanced Coach) rating implemented from USPA. Hopefully the additons to the SIM are a step in that direction.
I'd equally love to see a Canopy Instructor/Coach rating from USPA, and some form of progression monitoring system for S&TA's, DZO's, or license advancements that preclude/reduce pencil-whipping licenses and promote more intelligent downsizing considerations and progressions.

From my perspective, intelligent and well-developed educational programs and promotion of those programs are more effective than rules/BSR's.

If we had more of a USPA statement on canopy safety, camera safety, etc (vs the pablum we occasionally see out there) I suspect we could make strong steps towards a better informed culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



The issue addressed in the BSR is less flying a wingsuit than not properly rigging one and falling out.



As the person who proposed and argued for the wingsuit BSR, this is not accurate.
Because a ingsuit manufacturer was steadfastly against a USPA Wingsuit Instructor (or Advanced Coach) Rating, the next logical step was to propose the BSR.
I would gratefully, gladly see the BSR rescinded in favor of a Wingsuit Instructor (or advanced Coach) rating implemented from USPA. Hopefully the additons to the SIM are a step in that direction.
I'd equally love to see a Canopy Instructor/Coach rating from USPA, and some form of progression monitoring system for S&TA's, DZO's, or license advancements that preclude/reduce pencil-whipping licenses and promote more intelligent downsizing considerations and progressions.

From my perspective, intelligent and well-developed educational programs and promotion of those programs are more effective than rules/BSR's.

If we had more of a USPA statement on canopy safety, camera safety, etc (vs the pablum we occasionally see out there) I suspect we could make strong steps towards a better informed culture.



Not arguing your reasons as I agree with them, just disagree with you on why it got passed.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote


So your rules rely on common sense and instructor intervention. But if people use common sense and instructors intervene, what is the need for the rules? There's a paradox.



There is, but apparently common sense seems to fail a lot where canopy choice is concerned. Or wingsuiting. Or camera jumping. Or using large amounts of lead with swooping. Or pulling as low as you want.


\

And suddenly common sense and instructor intervention return when someone has X00 jumps?



Seems so. We don't see as many landing-related incidents in the 1000+ jumps range as we do (way) below that, do we? Aside from swooping, which is an extra risk a jumper can choose to take.



Who kept count? Where are the data?

I hear that claim every time this comes up, but no-one ever seems to have the data to confirm it.



I think we (KNVvL) actually have that data, as we KNVvL jumpers are supposed to send in a small report about any skydiving incident involving a reserve ride and/or damage to man or goods. I'm not sure I can get my hands on that data though, and in a format that's useful, but I'll give it a go.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Examples: Wingsuits through and around clouds, and they really got excited when they saw them swooping tandems.

Aircraft exceeding limitations on descent.

Tandem Demos into Stadiums.

Helicopter jumps with BASE equipment.



You forgot the congressional interest in AAD's earlier this year that was brought about by a fatality several years ago... But you might have to know someone who knows someone in the gear manufacturing industry to have heard about that one.

And all those ramp checks dz's have been getting all over the US? That's the FAA, folks, and it's a direct result of the NTSB inquiry last year.

We ARE on their radar. If we don't regulate us, they will - and we don't get to decide if we are regulating ourselves well enough once they've decided that federal oversight is needed - nor will we get much if any input into what regulations are enacted for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I would gratefully, gladly see the BSR rescinded in favor of a Wingsuit Instructor (or advanced Coach) rating implemented from USPA. Hopefully the additons to the SIM are a step in that direction.
I'd equally love to see a Canopy Instructor/Coach rating from USPA



Right off the bat I want to say that something is better than nothing, however, the problem with creating a rating is the burden of administering the rating and then the application of the rating (generally involving direct cost to the 'student').

In creating a rating the BOD will spend time hashing out the details such as the exact requirements, ratings course materals and structure, and the scope of the rating itself. This would be similar to the time spent hashing out the details of the BSR.

Beyond that, now you have the problems of rating the actual instructors, and the costs involved there, and then the students have the problems of getting access to the instructors and the costs involved in doing so. Not every DZ in every state will have a wingsuit coach or canopy coach, so jumpers in those states will have to add travel cost to the cost of the coaches time/jumps.

Compare that to a BSR, where after the BOD is done doing it's thing, the only step left is to add it to the SIM, done deal. No added cost to the USPA or jumpers, and uniform coverage for every DZ in the country.

As to the effectiveness of a BSR, consider all the other BSRs (wingsuit BSR aside) and how often you hear of intentional or blatent violations, not that often. While on the surface (in the begining) BSRs seem to lack effectiveness, after a couple years of 'cooking' they become a part of everyday life on the DZ, and are generally followed without complaint.

The PRO rating is a good example. Before the PRO rating we used to do any demo that came up, and it was just a matter of who was on the DZ when the plane left, and this went on for years with no problems (at least where I was jumping, I guess the DZO was a good judge of ability). Then the PRO rating was invetned, and now the guys who did a certain demo for years running could no longer be on that jump without this new 'rating'. I'm sure the rumbling and grumbling could be heard on every DZ in the country from long time jumpers used to doing a string of demos every year who were suddenly 'unqualified'.

Fast forward to today. The list of jumpers getting the PRO rating each month in Parachutist is substantial, and jumpers don't even blink when you mention needing a PRO rating for a certain demo, it's common knowledge, and everyone knows that that's the deal. Within a few years of the PRO rating being created, the older jumpers who were serious about demos got the rating, those who weren't serious stopped doing demos, and a generation of new jumpers graduated AFF with the PRO rating being the SOP on the DZ.

Once you factor in the time needed to develop a rating, the certification courses, and creating enough actual instructors to provide reasonable coverage to the country, creating a rating would take the same amount of time to develop as a BSR would take to be accepted by the masses, but at a lower cost to all involved, and with more immediate results. Even if the general population isn't happy about a new BSR, the majority of DZOs will enforce it from day one.

I guess the ultimate solution would be a BSR and a rating. Why not wait untill 200 jumps to fly a wingsuit or jump a camera, and then have seek additional training on top of that?

Either way, doing nothing implies that nothing needs to be done, and that's clearly not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



In creating a rating the BOD will spend time hashing out the details such as the exact requirements, ratings course materals and structure, and the scope of the rating itself. This would be similar to the time spent hashing out the details of the BSR.


I guess the ultimate solution would be a BSR and a rating. Why not wait untill 200 jumps to fly a wingsuit or jump a camera, and then have seek additional training on top of that?

Either way, doing nothing implies that nothing needs to be done, and that's clearly not the case.



For purposes of clarity, the Wingsuit Advanced Coach (or Instructor) program had already been written, accepted in principle by the USPA S&T committee. The syllabus for the program is the new addition to the SIM Section 6.2. The I/E program had also been authored and proposed. All but one wingsuit manufacturer was on board with an instructional rating, two of them had representatives there begging USPA for this rating. Only one wingsuit manufacturer, perceived as the "big dog" due to ignorance on the part of S&T Committee members, was opposed to the instructional rating.
As a group of 7 wingsuiters, all of us but one (who represented the manufacturer) were in agreement on the rating, and there were 9 more who had assisted in authoring the materials that had expressed their support for the rating. In addition, there was a USPA poll lasting 6 months that supported the addition of the instructional rating.
In other words, all the components you mention Dave, were/are in place. All but one manufacturer have agreed to adhere to the content and methods in the SIM 6.2 additions.

I hope that one day we'll be able to have the BSR and rating too. That would be the safest process, IMO. I feel it would be the same if there were a canopy progression that included an advanced Coach/Instructor, and BSR. Faced with a choice of one or the other, I'd prefer a mandated and well-supported instructional program.
I think we're on the same page here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Faced with a choice of one or the other, I'd prefer a mandated and well-supported instructional program.
I think we're on the same page here.



Of course, but as your experience shows, developing in a implementing a well-supported and effective instructional program is a pretty big hill to climb. Even after you 'seal the deal', the instructors need to be rated and distributed across the country, and then you run into the age-old problem of the varying quality between instructors.

In truth, the two should, and practically do, go hand in hand. You can't develop one or the other without contributing directly to the other. If, for example, you outline the minimum jump requirements to be eligable to jump with a rated 'coach', you have the first line of the BSR, or vice versa.

The difference is that as soon as you 'seal the deal', the BSR goes into effect, while it will take another 6 mos. to a year before rated coach #1 hits 'the street'. Figure another year before there are enough of them around to make access 'nationwide'.

I'll give you an example of why both would be the way to go. Already at my DZ we had to turn away a jumper with 140 jumps who showed up with a wingsuit, based on the BSR. Without the BSR, it would have come down to the DZO making the call, and the DZO doesn't even jump a wingsuit.

The coutner point is that he went to a non-USPA DZ and lied about his jump numbers in order to jump the wingsuit, and now has returned to my DZ with 200+ jumps and his wingsuit. If there was a coach or instructional program involved, he would still be on the hook for completing that on top of his 200 jumps.

While it's true he's managed to jump the suit without incident thus far, it would be nice to know that he had some sort of training and guidance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Faced with a choice of one or the other, I'd prefer a mandated and well-supported instructional program.
I think we're on the same page here.



Of course, but as your experience shows, developing in a implementing a well-supported and effective instructional program is a pretty big hill to climb. Even after you 'seal the deal', the instructors need to be rated and distributed across the country, and then you run into the age-old problem of the varying quality between instructors.

.



And who qualifies the course directors, and what are their qualifications to do so.... and if X is grandfathered, why isn't Z, etc.
...

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

I just continue to look for the day that individuals will have the freedom to make thier own choices............



Think of it this way. Until you have some experience, you're the skydiving equivalent of a child. Would you give a 10 year old the keys to a Ferrari? Probably not. He might hurt himself, someone else and the car. How about when he's 16? Well, the law says he can drive it, so you just might.

We don't want 100 jump wonders on highly loaded canopies for the same reason we don't want 10 year olds driving Ferraris. But by the time you have 500 jumps or so, you've hopefully developed some knowledge of and respect for the increased risks and learned the skills needed to handle the increased speed - both when things are perfect and when things are going to shit.

You have every right to make decisions and take risks that might hurt you. You don't have a right to make decisions and take risks that might hurt ME - and your lack of experience combined with a faster parachute and a seconds inattention could very well do that. Not to mention the rest of the dz, who'll get to watch as we're carted or flown away...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I just continue to look for the day that individuals will have the freedom to make thier own choices............



Think of it this way. Until you have some experience, you're the skydiving equivalent of a child. Would you give a 10 year old the keys to a Ferrari? Probably not. He might hurt himself, someone else and the car. How about when he's 16? Well, the law says he can drive it, so you just might.

We don't want 100 jump wonders on highly loaded canopies for the same reason we don't want 10 year olds driving Ferraris. But by the time you have 500 jumps or so, you've hopefully developed some knowledge of and respect for the increased risks and learned the skills needed to handle the increased speed - both when things are perfect and when things are going to shit.

.



REALLY BAD analogy. 10 y/os can't drive the family Volvo on the public streets either. A 17 y/o who has passed the drivers' test can drive a Ferrari on the public streets if she can afford the insurance.

On a private track (analogous to a private DZ) a 10 y/o is not prohibited from driving a Ferrari.

The FACT is that judgment and jump numbers don't correlate at all, and skill and jump numbers correlate only poorly.

There is an anecdote about a drunk, muttering to himself about losing his car keys after leaving a bar. A friend finds him on his hands and knees under the streetlight across the street from both the bar and his car, unable to find his keys. The friend points out the futility of looking for his lost keys across the street from his car, to which the drunk replies, “Yes, I know, but the light is much better over here!”

Using jump number as a substitute for judgment and testable skill is inappropriate - you only suggest it because it is easy, like looking under a light for the keys.
...

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

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