Wingload BSR.

[mswallin13 0]

Kallend-

As a fellow student of applied science (civil engineer), I very much respect your logical approach and insightful comments in most cases. However, I've always felt that there is little value in attacking potential solutions to a problem without offering your own alternative. It seems that you're poking holes in the balloons floated so far, but haven't suggested your own solution.

Unless I've misunderstood your positions, you've said that using jump numbers is too simplistic (a reasonable assertion), but that a rating system is too complex to implement (for both students and instructors). I would then ask, how are we to solve this problem?

Matthew Wallin
C-37899

[skybytch 259]

I dunno, I thought it was a halfway decent analogy. Someone with 50 or 100 jumps is a lot like a child - curious, always learning, willing to take risks because they don't have a basis for evaluating those risks yet. We shouldn't be allowing those with 100 jumps to buy and fly whatever they want for the same reasons that we don't give children the keys to cars.

Quote

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.

You are correct. I am suggesting it because it is easy. Easy to implement and easy to enforce. Brian Germain has already done the work - his wingloading chart would be a fine standard and easy to put into place. Enforcement would also be easy - want to buy a 1.8 loaded Crossfire? Show me your D license. Want to fly a 1.8 loaded Crossfire? Show me your D license - it would only take a jump or two for people to realize you lied about what was in your container if you tried to "sneak by".

Those who insisted upon education instead of regulation back in 2003 have had seven years to put their talk into action. We still don't see basic canopy survival skill courses at even half the dz's out there, even though there's a complete canopy control course outline and a canopy skills proficiency card in the SIM and hundreds of rated instructors out there who could teach the course and sign off the items on the card. There is still not a safety culture that makes it cool to take basic skills classes and fly canopies that that are appropriate for your ability, like how it's cool to jump with a helmet and an AAD today (both of which were the epitome of not cool when I started jumping).

I know I'm never going to convince you, John, but it sure is good practice trying.

[Heatmiser 0]

Your analogy to children doesn't take in to account that you are speaking of adults, with the ability to weigh pros and cons, and make decisions, that a child cannot do. I am not a child, that needs protection from my own decisions because I don't know any better. In all reality, neither is a 100 jump wonder that chooses to jump a canopy beyond their skill level. They are an adult, and guess what, adults make poor choices that get them selves hurt every day.

What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I am not a child, that needs protection from my own decisions because I don't know any better.

I disagree. If you haven't watched a friend fly away in a helicopter or visited a friend in the hospital or been to a friend's funeral because you decided to skydive, then you don't know any better yet - because you have yet to have the actual risks shoved in front of your face.

Quote

They are an adult, and guess what, adults make poor choices that get them selves hurt every day.

As long as the choices you make only pose a risk of hurting you, you're right. But skydiving isn't a completely solo activity. You share the air and the landing area with other people. When your choices put me and everyone else on the dropzone at risk - which someone with 100 or 200 or 300 jumps flying a higher wingloadings does - your right to make them stops.

See, it ain't all about you. It's about us.

[Heatmiser 0]

I don't have to watch a friend fly away in a helicopter, or a hearse to realize the risks in skydiving. The idea that I do is asinine. Do I have to see a friend or family member thrown from a car before I can appreciate the benefit of a seatbelt? Funny, I see people who've been driving 25 years speed 15 mph over the speed limit, unbuckled, while eating. 100, or 200, or 300 jumps does not equate to "child". My reasoning skills are those of an adult. Guess what. Someone can tell me the risks of a certain activity, and I can use my adult reasoning skills to determine the acceptability of those risks. Some people will see putting others at risk in the sky because of their choices acceptable. I am not one of those. I don't have to see someone go in under a perfectly good parachute that was too much for them in order to understand that. I understand your argument for protecting yourself in the sky, but to look at every jumper that doesn't have 500 or 1000 or 5000 jumps is a child is simplistic at best, and insulting at worst.

What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

Kallend-

As a fellow student of applied science (civil engineer), I very much respect your logical approach and insightful comments in most cases. However, I've always felt that there is little value in attacking potential solutions to a problem without offering your own alternative. It seems that you're poking holes in the balloons floated so far, but haven't suggested your own solution.

Unless I've misunderstood your positions, you've said that using jump numbers is too simplistic (a reasonable assertion),

CORRECT

Quote

but that a rating system is too complex to implement (for both students and instructors).

INCORRECT - I have NOT said that.

Quote

I would then ask, how are we to solve this problem?

IF, and ONLY IF we have to have a new BSR to deal with this "problem", by demonstration of testable canopy skills or satisfactory completion of an advanced canopy flight course.

...

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

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

Those who insisted upon education instead of regulation back in 2003 have had seven years to put their talk into action.

The burden of taking action is on those who want action taken. Personally, I think adults should be treated as such.

...

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

[DocPop 1]

Quote

As long as the choices you make only pose a risk of hurting you, you're right. But skydiving isn't a completely solo activity. You share the air and the landing area with other people. When your choices put me and everyone else on the dropzone at risk - which someone with 100 or 200 or 300 jumps flying a higher wingloadings does - your right to make them stops.

See, it ain't all about you. It's about us.

Read the numbers I posted up-thread. There are people with 1,000 2,000 or 3,000 jumps fucking up under canopy and THEY ACCOUNT FOR GREATER THAN 50% OF THE INCIDENTS.

Without a test of skill, how are you going to sensibly set your numbers to address the facts?

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

~ CanuckInUSA

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Without a test of skill, how are you going to sensibly set your numbers to address the facts?

Same way they did it in the Netherlands.

[davelepka 4]

In an earlier post, and under the assumption that they have seen an actual reduction in open canopy incidents in the Netherlands following the implementation of their WL rules, I asked this question -

Quote

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?

I'm interested in your opinion of what he downside is to a WL BSR that states 1.1 to 100 jumps, 1.2 to 200 jumps and so on with a limitation on HP canopies before 500 jumps.

I understand that you're doubtful of the existance of hard numbers showing that Netherlands did indeed experience a reduction in incidents, so maybe you could give me two versions of what you see as the downside- One assuming that the NL is proof that the concept works, and one assuming that no proof of the concept exists.

So what is the downside?

[MakeItHappen 15]

The WL chart has an unintended consequence, especially for new jumpers with only a few hundred jumps.
That is that a lot of new jumpers think the chart means how they should be progressing, as opposed to a maximum WL.

IOW, the NGs look at the chart and say "This says I should be at abc WL now."
That was never its intention, yet has become the interpretation that the chart has for many new jumpers with little or no knowledge of the carnage of the past.

There is a way to restrict the folks with MadSkillz.
Do it the same way it is done in bigway FS, CRW, VFS etc.
You have a 'load' organizer that 'approves' canopy + jumper combination.
With the separation of HP and conventional landing areas mandated in the GM pledge, it should be relatively easy to put someone of appropriate experience in charge of who gets to do HP landings.
This would be very similar to an FS organizer screening people for a bigway.

In order to find appropriate and practical solutions to the carnage of HP landings by people in over their heads, you have to look at why that is happening and how to remedy it.

If you look at how bigways are organized, there are people who filter out the incompetent or not ready people. Many years later they do get on the load after acquiring a sufficient skill level.
This is missing in the MadSkillz group.
Add that person or gate-keeper and you will see that people progress in a much more sane manner.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[billvon 2,380]

>Your analogy to children doesn't take in to account that you are speaking
>of adults, with the ability to weigh pros and cons, and make decisions . .

No, they're not. They are indeed adults. But even the wisest adult does not have the ability to weigh pros and cons of a sport they have zero experience with.

Would you let a friend who had never, ever jumped before take your Velocity 96 up for a jump? Even if he swore up and down that he understood the risk and he was fine with it? Even if he had seen plenty of videos that told him all about canopy flight? Probably not. Not because you do not think he is an adult, but because you think he can't make an informed decision with so little experience.

> I am not a child, that needs protection from my own decisions because I
>don't know any better.

Whuffos are indeed 'children' when it comes to making decisions about the risks they take in skydiving. As they gain more experience they can take on more and more risk.

We, as human beings, have zero instincts and zero fundamental understanding of skydiving. It is not a natural environment; nothing in our evolution has prepared us for jumping out of airplanes or flying an inflatable wing. That's why new skydivers are essentially children in the sport. They have the same experience with skydiving that children have in general - little to none.

[billvon 2,380]

>There are people with 1,000 2,000 or 3,000 jumps fucking up under
>canopy and THEY ACCOUNT FOR GREATER THAN 50% OF THE INCIDENTS.

Not in 2009 they didn't. We'll see if 2010 is any different.

[davelepka 4]

It's not hard to specify that a WL chart is a maximum allowed WL at whatever number of jumps, and not a reccomended WL for that number. You could even make that the title of the chart itself.

What would be infinately more difficult, and hugely subject to personal preference/perception is the idea that every load on every DZ needs to have a dedicated person to monitor the gear of the involved jumpers.

The only argument I hear against these type of regulation is from the 'effected parties', who claim that they personally have abilities beyond what the B Germain WL chart woud indicate, and that they have the full support of local instructors who know them and their abilities.

I can accept that situation (in most cases), as a rated jumper 'in the know' has signed off on a certain jumper, but the problem is that no instructor or load organizer would sign off on a jumper they don't know well and have trust in their abilities. So what you end up with is the local NGs getting one level of 'organizing' and any other jumper not personally known to the LO being restricted to a more conservative WL or canopy.

How then, does a jumper travel to another DZ with their rig? How do they know that the local LO won't ground them with their canopy of choice? What would they do then?

Having a basic, jump number based WL chart is the best, most uniform way to ensure that jumpers take an easy, progressive path to building their canopy piloting experience. Even if a jumper was to downsize every 100 jumps as the chart allows, I think that putting 100 jumps on a canopy, and then upping your WL .1 is a sound plan. 100 hops on a canopy is a fair number to get the hang of things, and .1 is avery modest bump to a WL.

Possible inadequate labeling of the chart aside, I'll ask again, what's the downside to this type of arrangement?

[crashtested 0]

I have to agree with the pro choice group on this, Looking at the (small amount of) Facts it seems that even with a canopy regulation being put in place, you will still lose the same ammount of people ploughing in, you may just have a larger ammount at the end of each summer when they reach that magical number and downsize to a 1.8 wingloading at 501 jumps / d licence.

Adults make stupid choices all the time, be it chosing to drink and drive, speed, take drugs, despite the governing rules that have been put in place to stop that.

Putting regulation in place to stop people downsizing may have the opposite effect, by increasing the ammount of people who want to learn how to swoop - some people enjoy the speed when comming into land - which would again do nothing to decrease the amount of injuries due to high performance canopys / landings. but imo would increase it.

a possible soloution to this would be for each dz to implement there own system, giving its jumpers the choice to make a decesion of whether or not to jump there.

If your so unhappy with the system then there is nothing stopping YOU from talking to your dz owner and asking him to self regulate whats going on in your back yard, if it works, then maybe other DZ's would tow the line.

I find it strange that people who can't sort out whats happening at there own DZ, feel the need to poke around at everyone else's, when we may not all have the same problem.

Self regulation / common sense is the way fwd.

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

what the downside is to a WL BSR that states 1.1 to 100 jumps

Be careful what you wish for or USPA could become like PADI is in the Scuba Industry. PADI has thousands of the equivilant of BSR's. It also has a strangle hold on the instructors. $192.50 a year to be allowed to teach. You also can't teach a PADI student without purchasing PADI approved Liability insurance. The minimum charge on that is $688.00 a year.

I have read a lot of posts complaining that USPA isn't a strong authority. Someday it will be and we will probably all regret it.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

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.

These are all easy questions that the USPA can be tasked with answering - just as they have answered on every other regulation that they've imposed. Using these questions as objections to the simple proposal of rules can only be described two ways : Obstinate and unhelpful.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

>Your analogy to children doesn't take in to account that you are speaking
>of adults, with the ability to weigh pros and cons, and make decisions . .

No, they're not. They are indeed adults. But even the wisest adult does not have the ability to weigh pros and cons of a sport they have zero experience with.

.

Invalid comparison - we are discussing LICENSED SKYDIVERS, not people with zero experience.

...

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

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

Quote

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.

These are all easy questions that the USPA can be tasked with answering - just as they have answered on every other regulation that they've imposed. Using these questions as objections to the simple proposal of rules can only be described two ways : Obstinate and unhelpful.

_Am

Thanks for relying on the wisdom of USPA.

USPA, in its wisdom, has so far decided against a WL BSR.

...

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

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

Quote

Without a test of skill, how are you going to sensibly set your numbers to address the facts?

Same way they did it in the Netherlands.

Arbitrary numbers based on almost no demonstrated correlation with reality. OK.

...

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

[davelepka 4]

Quote

what the downside is to a WL BSR that states 1.1 to 100 jumps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Be careful what you wish for or USPA could become like PADI is in the Scuba Industry. PADI has thousands of the equivilant of BSR's. It also has a strangle hold on the instructors. $192.50 a year to be allowed to teach.

No, that's the downside to rolling this issue into a new rating for canopy control coaches. Creating a BSR representes almost zero cost to the jumpers or USPA.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Putting regulation in place to stop people downsizing may have the opposite effect, by increasing the ammount of people who want to learn how to swoop - some people enjoy the speed when comming into land - which would again do nothing to decrease the amount of injuries due to high performance canopys / landings. but imo would increase it.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all. Are you suggesting that people who want to go fast would simply be happy to jump a smaller canopy and not swoop, but if they were limited to their larger canopy that they would be forced to swoop to satisfy their 'need for speed'?

People who want to swoop are going to swoop, and people who don't want to swoop are not. What they jump has no relevance in that area. The truth is that people who want to swoop will downsize and swoop to go REALLY fast, hence the existance of stock canopies under 75 sq ft.

Quote

a possible soloution to this would be for each dz to implement there own system, giving its jumpers the choice to make a decesion of whether or not to jump there.

Welcome to reality, that's what we have now.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Thanks for relying on the wisdom of USPA.

USPA, in its wisdom, has so far decided against a WL BSR.

And in their wisdom they have decided to make a "professional educator" like yourself jump through the same hoops as everyone else.

Thank goodness for that.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Not in 2009 they didn't. We'll see if 2010 is any different.

Page 56 of the April 2010 Parachutist states that 56% of fatalities in 2009 were D-licenced skydivers.

This is a different data set from my numbers up-thread but supports the same point.

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

~ CanuckInUSA

[DocPop 1]

Quote

The WL chart has an unintended consequence, especially for new jumpers with only a few hundred jumps.
That is that a lot of new jumpers think the chart means how they should be progressing, as opposed to a maximum WL.

IOW, the NGs look at the chart and say "This says I should be at abc WL now."
That was never its intention, yet has become the interpretation that the chart has for many new jumpers with little or no knowledge of the carnage of the past.

There is a way to restrict the folks with MadSkillz.
Do it the same way it is done in bigway FS, CRW, VFS etc.
You have a 'load' organizer that 'approves' canopy + jumper combination.
With the separation of HP and conventional landing areas mandated in the GM pledge, it should be relatively easy to put someone of appropriate experience in charge of who gets to do HP landings.
This would be very similar to an FS organizer screening people for a bigway.

In order to find appropriate and practical solutions to the carnage of HP landings by people in over their heads, you have to look at why that is happening and how to remedy it.

If you look at how bigways are organized, there are people who filter out the incompetent or not ready people. Many years later they do get on the load after acquiring a sufficient skill level.
This is missing in the MadSkillz group.
Add that person or gate-keeper and you will see that people progress in a much more sane manner.

.

In other words - make the S&TA do their job?

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

~ CanuckInUSA