Wingload BSR.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

> No is doesn't. It means someone who is a klutz but wants to downsize
>does so at the *magic* number regardless of skill level.

Right. And right now, that same klutz downsizes even sooner. Hence the utility of even a jumps-based BSR. While having more jumps does not cure one of being a klutz, a klutz with less experience is more likely to kill himself than a klutz with more.

TO REPEAT:
"And just to make it clear to those who read into my post things that I haven't written: I am not opposed to a wingload BSR. I am opposed to a BSR based on jump numbers rather than ability."

I'm surprised you choose the easy path instead of the right path.

Would you be opposed to a BSR that imposes a minimum jump number and a test of ability?

James

If they can prove they have the ability, a jump number requirement is irrelevant and superfluous.

How do you propose they prove they have the ability?

James

Test.

Just like we ask candidates for a license, or a PRO rating, or a coach rating, or an instructor rating to prove they have the ability.

To receive any of those you must have a minimum number of jumps(or freefall time) to qualify.

If jump numbers are "irrelevant and superfluous" then we should be able to open up the testing for anyone to do.

Do you want to ride on the front of a tandem instructor candidate with only 50 jumps if he has passed all the written and oral "knowledge" test?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

but on the DZs that now have to track every jumper's wing loading limits

Well, the DZ is already keeping track of the jumper's geared up weight so they maintain weight and balance in the AC, right?

Ever see a ramp check where the FAA official wanted the weight and balance sheet and then wanted to know what the jumpers actually weighed and how much fuel was on board? I've seen that happen!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[davelepka 4]

Here's what I don't get about the opposition to this idea, everyone seems hell-bent on absolutes. Any idea that cannot be backed up 100% by absolute statistics (which don't exist not because they aren't valid, but because the info is not recorded and complied, for all we know the numbers may support a WL BSR), or any idea that cannot guarantee absolute success is cast aside as invalid and a waste of time. What ever happened to common sense?

As a jumper with many years of experience and observation of the landscape, to include the switch from F-111 to z-po, and then to high performance Z-po, and the development of swooping-

Would you not agree that a jumper, any jumper, who follows a systematic process of downsizing, to include at least 100 jumps on each canopy, will build a more solid base of skills then the jumper who jumps a canopy at the borderline of his skill only to downsize as they start to get a handle on the first one?

Would you not agree that the jumper following the more conservative progression would be less likely to hurt themselves or others?

Would you not agree that within a few years of z-po canopies becoming the 'standard', open canopy incidents became the largest segment of the fatality list, and that in terms of training or regulation very little has been done to adapt skydiving to this 'new' technology?

Would you not agree that the state of canopies has progressed such that the top end of what canopies and pilots are capable of has had a negative effect on the lower end of canopies and jumpers, and they have an un-realistic opinion of what they, or their canopies, should be doing?

I'm sure somebody can find a way to disagree with the above, but the majority would agree. Keeping this in mind, the prudent and resonsible thing to do is to take a guess, and do something.

There are no absolutes in this sport, the human factor will ensure that. No matter what sort of training you were to implement, or what type of BSR I might implement, people will still die or be injured under open canopies. Keeping that in mind, we have to move forward not looking for absolutes, but looking for progress. We should be looknig for improvement from the status quo as a 'solution' does not exist.

So if you consider the above questions, and that we should be doing something seeking improvement, a WL BSR is the easiest way to ensure that every jumper is held to a reasonable course of downsizing.

Testing out is bullshit because there is no way to devise a test that will determine how a jumper will perform in the worst case scenario, or that will determine what the jumper will attempt to do with the canopy beyond the test session. Sure, Jim Jumper has shown he can fly a pattern, do a flat turn, a braked approach, and land with accuracy under that zippy new canopy, so sign the guy off. What happens next week when he starts trying to swoop it? Just because he can perform basic pedestrian skills at the bottom end of the canopies performance envelope doesn't mean that he can handle manuvers at the outer edge of that envelope. How do you test for that?

The test-out standard has holes in the concept, from the Jim Jumper example above, to the variation in the opinion of test administrators (which is ultimately what will make the final go/no-go call on a certain jumper on a certain canopy). The Wl BSR is universal, and fair to every jumper at every DZ. They can count on the same standard of accepted canopies at every DZ they visit. A WL BSR will do no harm to anyone, jumpers who complain they will be 'held back' have no idea what they're talking about, and truthfully if they don't like it let them quit jumping, we don't need them.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

> No is doesn't. It means someone who is a klutz but wants to downsize
>does so at the *magic* number regardless of skill level.

Right. And right now, that same klutz downsizes even sooner. Hence the utility of even a jumps-based BSR. While having more jumps does not cure one of being a klutz, a klutz with less experience is more likely to kill himself than a klutz with more.

TO REPEAT:
"And just to make it clear to those who read into my post things that I haven't written: I am not opposed to a wingload BSR. I am opposed to a BSR based on jump numbers rather than ability."

I'm surprised you choose the easy path instead of the right path.

Would you be opposed to a BSR that imposes a minimum jump number and a test of ability?

James

If they can prove they have the ability, a jump number requirement is irrelevant and superfluous.

How do you propose they prove they have the ability?

James

Test.

Just like we ask candidates for a license, or a PRO rating, or a coach rating, or an instructor rating to prove they have the ability.

To receive any of those you must have a minimum number of jumps(or freefall time) to qualify.

If jump numbers are "irrelevant and superfluous" then we should be able to open up the testing for anyone to do.

There has never been ANY proof presented that jump numbers are more important, or as important, as demonstrated ABILITY.

Quote

Do you want to ride on the front of a tandem instructor candidate with only 50 jumps if he has passed all the written and oral "knowledge" test?

No, because I propose a test of ABILITY, as you would know if you bothered to read what I wrote. Ability is not what is measured in a written/oral test.

Would you want to ride on the front of a tandem instructor with 1000 jumps who couldn't pass the course?

...

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

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

.

Testing out is bullshit because there is no way to devise a test that will determine how a jumper will perform in the worst case scenario, or that will determine what the jumper will attempt to do with the canopy beyond the test session.

The accident stats show very clearly that jump numbers don't work, or people with thousands of jumps wouldn't be dying under good canopies. Yet you persist in pushing the use of a parameter that doesn't work.

Sitting through 4 years of engineering classes doesn't qualify you to build bridges. You have to pass the classes and pass the licensing exam to prove that you can do it.

US schools are regularly and correctly criticized for promoting students to the next grade just for occupying a seat for a year without learning anything. That is exactly like your jump number proposal.

...

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

[davelepka 4]

Quote

The accident stats show very clearly that jump numbers don't work, or people with thousands of jumps wouldn't be dying under good canopies. Yet you persist in pushing the use of a parameter that doesn't work

You continue to skirt the issue that the 'accident' stats you quote are more accurately defined as 'fatal accident' stats. There are no statistics compiled, as far as I know, that include non-fatal accidents resulting in injury to either the principal jumper or a secondary jumper.

I have not done this, but I am 100% sure that reviewing the Incidents forum on DZ.com alone would reveal a larger number of non-fatal open canopy incidents as compared to those resulting in a fatality for a given calender year.

It's a safe bet that any fatal incident would appear in the forum, as even if no local jumpers post it, the press will cover it and someone will stumble upon the story. Non-fatal incidents, on the other hand, can and do go unreported all the time. If no local jumper choses to post it, and the press is not involved, there would be no record.

The end result is a fairly accurate recording of fatal incidents, and an incomplete recording of non-fatal incidents. Despite this, the non-fatal incidents still out number the fatal incidents, yet those are the only statistics you quote in your opposition to a Wl BSR.

Fatalities are a terrible thing, but that doesn't negate the negative effects of non-fatal incidents. They deserve just as much consideration when contemplating a WL BSR, or any action designed to improve the safety of jumpers everywhere.

The WL BSR remains the easiest to implement, most fair solution available.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

The WL BSR remains the easiest to implement, most fair solution available.

Not if it's based on irrelevant criteria like you are pushing, with NO DATA TO SUPPORT IT.

TO REPEAT YET AGAIN FOR THOSE WHO DON'T READ:

"And just to make it clear to those who read into my post things that I haven't written: I am not opposed to a wingload BSR. I am opposed to a BSR based on jump numbers rather than ability."

...

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

[dragon2 0]

Quote

You continue to skirt the issue that the 'accident' stats you quote are more accurately defined as 'fatal accident' stats. There are no statistics compiled, as far as I know, that include non-fatal accidents resulting in injury to either the principal jumper or a secondary jumper.

We do actually: in case of a reserve ride or any damage to good or person (at least the ones where a jumper had to get medical care, ie not just an ice pack) we have to report it to the KNVvL. But everyone there is on holiday it seems, kinda hard to get my hands on our statistics right now...

Edit: Oh yeah the reserve ride thing reminds me, we seem to have had a markedly decrease of spinning mals these last few years.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[davelepka 4]

John, just so you know, I do enjoy the dialouge we have on this and other issues, but in this case the majority of my posts are not intended to sway your opinion, as it's quite clear that you have made up your mind (as is your right to). My responses to you (and some others) are intended to highlight what I believe to be the short-comings of your position to the readers following this thread. Even if I cannot sway your opinion, if I can sway the opinion of enough other jumpers, then I feel my idea has a greater chance for becoming a reality.

Let's face it, just the two of us won't be able to change much of anything, but if either one of us can garner the support of the community-at-large, then we stand a chance of implementing some meaningful change to the situation.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

What ever happened to common sense?

I ask that myself -- every time someone proposes a bandaid BSR instead of fixing our ridiculous training system that puts fun skill training ahead of survival skill training.

Quote

Would you not agree that a jumper, any jumper, who follows a systematic process of downsizing, to include at least 100 jumps on each canopy, will build a more solid base of skills then the jumper who jumps a canopy at the borderline of his skill only to downsize as they start to get a handle on the first one?

Yes, I agree and wouldn't you agree that the sun comes up every morning? Both questions are equally irrelevant in the face of the fact that most of the people killing themselves under open canopies would be outside the scope of your proposed wingloading BSR.

Quote

Would you not agree that within a few years of z-po canopies becoming the 'standard', open canopy incidents became the largest segment of the fatality list, and that in terms of training or regulation very little has been done to adapt skydiving to this 'new' technology?

Agree? I'm the one who keeps bringing it up -- since before you even started jumping (I called for this change 16 years ago in a SKYDIVING article, and repeated it two years ago in a revisitation of that article).

We have a fatally flawed training system that puts fun skill training ahead of survival skill training. This was not a big deal when freefall-focused training started because everyone jumped F-111 canopies at 1:1 or less.

Now, however, it is a big deal and until we deal with that 900-pound gorilla of a big deal, more people with thousands of jumps will kill themselves under open canopies because they never received the core training necessary at the beginning -- regardless of the number of bandaid BSRs you try to slap on severed arteries (and places that aren't even bleeding).

Quote

We have to move forward not looking for absolutes, but looking for progress. We should be looking for improvement from the status quo as a 'solution' does not exist.

Unless it involves improving or progressing with our fatally flawed training system, right? Please explain to me why is it that you spend thousands of words bandying about a bandaid BSR but none on fixing the core problem.

Quote

A WL BSR is the easiest way to ensure that every jumper is held to a reasonable course of downsizing.

First off, the definition of "reasonable" is the point around which 99 percent of all lawsuits revolve -- and a term that 99.9 percent of the world's people do not associate with parachuting in any way, shape or form.

Second, the problem is not low-timers downsizing too fast; it's high-timers going down too fast too close to the ground -- a problem that is not addressed by a wingloading BSR based on jump numbers.

Finally, the easiest way to any goal is usually where you find the most landmines and ambushes. If we are actually serious about reducing the number of open parachute fatalities, then we must take the hardest way, which is overcoming the inertia and ignorance that props up our fatally flawed training system that focuses from the first jump on the FUN SKILLS OF FREEFALL instead of focusing the SURVIVAL SKILLS OF LEARNING TO OPERATE, NAVIGATE AND FLY THE PARACHUTE.

I'll say it again a different way: Our open parachute fatalities are like oil washing up on Gulf shore beaches and the broken well is our training system. How "reasonable" would it be to keep trying to clean up the oil but refuse to even discuss capping the broken well, much less actually try to do it?

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."

[DocPop 1]

To look at this from another perspective - what about enforcement of a new BSR?

We do have the framework in place to prevent unsafe downsizing (S&TA and DZO grounding jumpers) but it seems that very few DZs are actually doing it. Why?

Bill von Novak states the following in the introduction to his downsizing checklist:

"Maybe the approach I was taking was wrong. Since jumpers tend not to listen to other people who tell them they're not as good as they think they are, perhaps if you could give them better tools to evaluate _themselves_ they could make better decisions about canopy choices. It's one thing to have some boring S+TA guy give you a lecture about not having any fun under canopy, quite another to try to perform a needed maneuver under canopy - and fail. In that case there's no one telling you you can't fly the canopy, it's just blatantly obvious."

This approach will not solve all our problems, because there will still be S&TAs and DZOs who don't care to enforce the new BSR. However, for those who do want to enforce it, a BSR requiring skill demonstration gives a jumper something to work towards, and "forces" them to focus on canopy skills - at least for a few jumps.

In other words - "Show me you can do all the things on this checklist and you might be ready for your next canopy" is much more palatable for an eager young jumper to hear and much easier for an instructor to enforce than "No, you can't do it because you are 50 jumps short".

The other outcome of requiring jumpers to complete the skills on the "downsizing checklist" is that some jumpers may scare themselves attempting some of the drills such as flat turn 90 degrees at 50 feet, landing crosswind or landing with rear risers. Some of those jumpers may decide that they are not ready for a smaller canopy.

It is true that we cannot put people into a dangerous position such as an imminent canopy collision at 50 feet to test them, but in my view some kind of test of ability is far preferable that an arbitrary set of jump numbers.

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

~ CanuckInUSA

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

I don't know of any way that would address the "experienced" jumpers who are in way over their head. The rules over in Europe grandfathered jumpers with their (then) current canopies, no matter how inappropriate.

But stopping the up-and-coming jumpers from becoming those very same "experienced jumpers in over their head" would address the problem in time.

Kind of reversing your oil spill example, capping the well would be analagous (sp?) to enacting a BSR (based on numbers, skill or both). There is still oil washing up on the beaches, but no more being put into the water. It will take time to have an effect, but at least the situation won't get worse.

And I agree that mandatory canopy training would be a very good thing. One of the advantages to S/L (which is what I did) is that the student has a minimum of 5 canopy flights before the first H&P. You don't even get to think about freefall until you have at least a few landings (and patterns and all that).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[davelepka 4]

Quote

the problem is not low-timers downsizing too fast; it's high-timers going down too fast too close to the ground -- a problem that is not addressed by a wingloading BSR based on jump numbers.

No, that's the problem in fatal open canopy incidents, not neccesarily in non-fatal open canopy incidents. I addressed that issue with this -

Quote

I have not done this, but I am 100% sure that reviewing the Incidents forum on DZ.com alone would reveal a larger number of non-fatal open canopy incidents as compared to those resulting in a fatality for a given calender year.

It's a safe bet that any fatal incident would appear in the forum, as even if no local jumpers post it, the press will cover it and someone will stumble upon the story. Non-fatal incidents, on the other hand, can and do go unreported all the time. If no local jumper choses to post it, and the press is not involved, there would be no record.

The end result is a fairly accurate recording of fatal incidents, and an incomplete recording of non-fatal incidents. Despite this, the non-fatal incidents still out number the fatal incidents, yet those are the only statistics you quote in your opposition to a Wl BSR.

It may take 5 years, or it may take 10, but even if you want to ignore the non-fatal incidents, eventaully the experienced jumpers killing themselves will have begun skydiving under the rule of a WL BSR. They will have the benefit of the solid base of skills you agreed would stem from a controlled downsizing progression, not to mention the influence of a community who accepts and endorses the BSR (just like the community today accepts and endroses the BSRs).

You said it yourself, the call went out 16 years ago for a new approach to match the new canopies, and that initiative has clearly failed to gain any ground of any kind. So let's crank up this WL BSR business, muscle through the ackward first few years, and get it in the process of ingraining itself in the landscape of skydiving. Each year will add more and more jumpers who never knew life without a WL BSR, and will see the newbie nay-sayers move beyond the scope of the BSR, and like most jumpers do, gain the wisdom of experience, and get on board just the same.

The end result is that it's in place, accepted, and people get the idea that canopies are not something to 'play' with, but a flying machine that needs to be respected, and approached with a cautious and measured appraoch.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

We do have the framework in place to prevent unsafe downsizing (S&TA and DZO grounding jumpers) but it seems that very few DZs are actually doing it. Why?

Grounding them for what? What is unsafe and what is not?

Without a clear definition, how do you justify grounding a jumper for unsafe downsizing? Where is the line as to what is, or is not safe, and what would justify you grounding a jumper (a paying customer) and telling them that the canopy they paid good money for cannot be jumped at your DZ?

What then stops them from going down the street to a more 'liberal' DZO or S&TA, who sees their choice as more reasonable?

How do you account for the DZO who has never jumped anyting smaller than a 190? How do they have the perspective to a make a judgement as to what is, or is not safe?

Many of these same problems exist with the 'test out' option. What level of performance is 'good enough' to pass a student to a certain canopy? Would you expect every student to perform with robotic accuracy, or is there a 'range' of performance that would result in a passing score?

What about the difference in opninion between test administrators, how do you account for that? If one passes a jumper to a certain canopy, and they are more liberal in their testing, and that jumper goes across town or on vacation and they come face to face with a more conseravtive test administrator or DZO, what happens then? Is the jumper denied permission to jump their gear that DZ?

It's a logistical can of worms that is way too subjective to ever have a chance of working. A BSR is a simple affair. These are your jump numbers, and these are your canopy choices. If you fall outside of the chart, you cannot jump at this DZ, those are the rules. It's not open to opinion or interrpertation.

Is it perfect? No. Will it guarantee an end to open-canopy incidents, both fatal or non-fatal? No. Does it guarantee that every jumper will spend some time on a conservative wing at a reasonable loading? Yes. Does that generally equal a better canopy pilot in the end? Yes. Isn't that what we're really after here, better canopy pilots? Yes.

The downside, the uber-skilled jumper who is actually further ahead of the canopy the BSR allows him. Does he lose the uber-skills by jumping a canopy 'below him' for awhile? No.

Does he quit jumping because his allowable canopies are too slow?

-If no, then the BSR has done no harm

-If yes, the BSR has lost us a jumper, but it's a jumper who lacks the patience and long-term vision to put in the time of making 400 jumps, at which point you're allowed 1.4, a WL resulting a quick and swoopable canopy. Is that really a loss? Is that the type of jumper you want to share the sky with? What other corners is that jumper looking to cut, and at what expense?

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Quote

Grounding them for what? What is unsafe and what is not?

That is for the S&TA to judge, but to give you examples of unsafe practices - not flying a predictable pattern, cutting other jumpers off, repeatedly hitting obstacles, repeated low turns.....

Quote

What then stops them from going down the street to a more 'liberal' DZO or S&TA, who sees their choice as more reasonable?

Nothing at this point because, per my original point, this system is not working.

Quote

How do you account for the DZO who has never jumped anyting smaller than a 190? How do they have the perspective to a make a judgement as to what is, or is not safe?

The DZO has a responsibility to appoint a S&TA who can make those judgements for the safety of all at the DZ.

Quote

What about the difference in opinion between test administrators, how do you account for that?

That is equally true of AFF at the moment. There is variability between AFFIs about what constitutes passing a level. It is easy to throw up objections like this, but I do not buy the fact that no evaluation is a good answer to evaluator variability.

Quote

Does it guarantee that every jumper will spend some time on a conservative wing at a reasonable loading? Yes. Does that generally equal a better canopy pilot in the end?

Not necessarily. Someone can spend thousands of jumps on the same canopy without really exploring its capabilities. I have seen numerous jumpers with thousands of jumps who can't fly a canopy worth a shit and who are basically hanging there like a passenger crossing their fingers for a good landing. Some form of mandatory canopy education would have helped them during their progression.

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

~ CanuckInUSA

[fasted3 0]

I know that most accidents are under a good canopy, and that is the basis for saying something must be done. So you propose solving the problem of low time jumpers under too small canopies.
But wait a minute. How many accidents are from low time jumpers under small canopies? It looks to me like there are other problems that don't happen under too small canopies at all. Collisions, low turns and crashes under big tame canopies for example.
Those seems to account for about half the wrecks.
Now what about high number guys under small canopies? They seem to be about half the small canopy problem right?
Factor in the low number guys under small canopies that don't crash.
So your BSR works on about 25% of the problem, the way I add it up, and tough shit for the guys that weren't causing any trouble in the first place.
The biggest supporters of this are guys with high numbers that won't be affected at all. Easy enough for them to say tough shit, isn't it?
How about nobody jumps small canopies? That would take care of closer to half the problem than 25% wouldn't it?
And since I don't jump a small canopy, I think it's perfect.

But what do I know?

[crotalus01 0]

Dave, I think you kinda shoot your own argument ion the foot when first you say "What is unsafe and what is not?"
And a couple of paragraphs later you say "Does it guarantee that every jumper will spend some time on a conservative wing at a reasonable loading? Yes."
Who decides what is a reasonable loading? You?
Kinda stands to reason that what is reasonable for Student A might not be reasonable for Student B. I think that is the crux of Dr Kallends argument against jump numbers being the sole determining factor.
The other issue I see with your argument is you say you are wanting to prevent collisions, etc (non-fatal) and at the same time admit there is no compilation of data on these incidents. Possible that it is up-jumpers that would not be affected by a BSR that are causing these problems to begin with? Of all the near misses and low turn impacts I have seen, only 1 (ONE) was a "low time" jumper (2 years in sport 300 jumps on a Niton 170)...

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Someone can spend thousands of jumps on the same canopy without really exploring its capabilities. I have seen numerous jumpers with thousands of jumps who can't fly a canopy worth a shit and who are basically hanging there like a passenger crossing their fingers for a good landing. Some form of mandatory canopy education would have helped them during their progression.

Of course it would have, but as mentioned many times in this thread, the educational appraoch has been 'on the table' far longer than the idea of a Wl BSR, and it has gained no ground.

In terms of jumpers not learning anything for 1000s of jumps, they would be the exception, not the rule. Any attempt to solve every problem of every jumper would never get off the ground (no pun intended). Idiots will always be idiots.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

The biggest supporters of this are guys with high numbers that won't be affected at all. Easy enough for them to say tough shit, isn't it?

Who then, would you suggest is more qualified to make judgments about canopies and canopy performance than high-time high-performance canopy pilots.

What would the motivation be for me to push this aggenda other than my belief that this is the best course of action we have?

Let me guess, just like the low timers who protest when I suggest that 200 jumps is a good minimum for someone jumping a camera, I'm just trying to portect my position at the DZ, right? I don't want anyone trying to take my video slot, and I don't want anyone else swooping at my DZ. Makes perfect sense.

[in2jumping 0]

Quote

Of course it would have, but as mentioned many times in this thread, the educational appraoch has been 'on the table' far longer than the idea of a Wl BSR, and it has gained no ground.

Nope has not gained any ground because the same shit keeps happening and has for the last 10 years. I think a WL BSR is much more needed than the wingsuit and camera BSR.

Education is fine but you can not really teach someone on the ground how to fly a canopy, it takes experience which comes with jumps.

Quote

In terms of jumpers not learning anything for 1000s of jumps, they would be the exception, not the rule. Any attempt to solve every problem of every jumper would never get off the ground (no pun intended). Idiots will always be idiots.

I would much rather be landing in a crowded landing area with someone with 1000 jumps on the same canopy than the know it all yahoo with couple hundred jumps that has downsized to canopy he can barley control.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Dave, I think you kinda shoot your own argument ion the foot when first you say "What is unsafe and what is not?"
And a couple of paragraphs later you say "Does it guarantee that every jumper will spend some time on a conservative wing at a reasonable loading? Yes."
Who decides what is a reasonable loading? You?
Kinda stands to reason that what is reasonable for Student A might not be reasonable for Student B

Sure, that's why you set the standard for jumper B, and jumper A has to 'suffer' by jumping out an airplane with a bigger canopy then they think is cool. What a shame.

I'm not suggesting any numbers. I only have 5000 jumps, 15 years in the sport, and have never designed a canopy. I defer to Brian Germains WL chart because he has 10,000+ jumps, 20 years in the sport, a degree in aeronautical engineering, and has designed several very successful canopies. He created the chart several years ago with the intention of it becoming the standard to follow.

Let's face it, someone somewhere has to come up with the numbers. There will be no sign from above, or act of congress, at some level a person, or persons, will have to sit down and say, 'This is the deal'.

It's interesting how I, with my experience and qualifications giving me every right to be head-strong, realize the benefit of defering to a person, Brian Germain, who is clearly my superior in these matters, yet you, with little to fall back on would suggest it outrageous that I would be the one to generate the numbers to follow, despite the superiority of my qualifications to yours.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Kind of reversing your oil spill example, capping the well would be analagous (sp?) to enacting a BSR (based on numbers, skill or both). There is still oil washing up on the beaches, but no more being put into the water. It will take time to have an effect, but at least the situation won't get worse.

That's not reversing it -- that's missing the point. the gushing oil well is our fatally flawed training system. A wingloading BSR is the steps taken to clean up the oil.

If you don't cap the well, you'll be cleaning up forever and never getting a handle on the problem because there is always more oil.

Same same with our training system that is gushing stupid ignorant pilots into our sport ecosystem; until you cap the well that focvuses on freefall fun skills instead of parachute survival skills, there's always going to be more oil (blood) than we can handle.

Quote

One of the advantages to S/L (which is what I did) is that the student has a minimum of 5 canopy flights before the first H&P. You don't even get to think about freefall until you have at least a few landings (and patterns and all that).

+1

Part of the program I've proposed for 16 years starts with a couple of "real" tandems, where you get actual "dual" instruction the same way you would when you earn a airplane pilot license, then goes to static line/iad/h&p jumps until you pass all the parachute operation/navigation/landing prerequisites before you start freefall... to include at least your first downsizing from student canopy to something more freefall-manageable (a big benefit of Roger Nelson going to Sabres was that the rigs were smaller so that they were easier to freefall maneuver with, especially for smaller jumper).

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[robinheid 0]

Quote

I have not done this, but I am 100% sure that reviewing the Incidents forum on DZ.com alone would reveal a larger number of non-fatal open canopy incidents as compared to those resulting in a fatality for a given calender year.

And the low-timer to high-timer non-fatal crater ratio is..?

Nobody so far (that I recall) has put any numbers to this ratio, but I can say anecdotally over my years in the sport that measurably more of the non-fatal craters are also being made by high-timers, so in my experience the fatal-non-fatal distinction is moot.

Quote

It may take 5 years, or it may take 10, but even if you want to ignore the non-fatal incidents, eventually the experienced jumpers killing themselves will have begun skydiving under the rule of a WL BSR. They will have the benefit of the solid base of skills you agreed would stem from a controlled downsizing progression, not to mention the influence of a community who accepts and endorses the BSR (just like the community today accepts and endroses the BSRs).

I did not and do not agree to this; I specifically and categorically reject it. Using a wingloading BSR in place of refocusing our fatally flawed training system is tha bandaid on the severed artery. We need surgery, not bandaids.

Quote

You said it yourself, the call went out 16 years ago for a new approach to match the new canopies, and that initiative has clearly failed to gain any ground of any kind. So let's crank up this WL BSR business, muscle through the awkward first few years, and get it in the process of ingraining itself in the landscape of skydiving.

+1... sort of...
Technically, a wingloading BSR is a flawed way to address our fatally flawed training system; politically, however, you may indeed be on to something here:

Impose a unmanageable and ineffective new set of rules and admin hassles on the sport and maybe it will force us to actually change the training system that is the root problem.

Hmmm...

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."

[davelepka 4]

Just to clarify, I'm not making this shit up, the italics in the following quote are your italics of my post, and the reposne is your reposnse to my quote

Quote

They will have the benefit of the solid base of skills you agreed would stem from a controlled downsizing progression, not to mention the influence of a community who accepts and endorses the BSR (just like the community today accepts and endroses the BSRs).

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


I did not and do not agree to this;

You did agree to it while responding to previous post. Below is the question I posed, and underneath is your repsone, both cut and pasted from one of your above posts.

Quote

Would you not agree that a jumper, any jumper, who follows a systematic process of downsizing, to include at least 100 jumps on each canopy, will build a more solid base of skills then the jumper who jumps a canopy at the borderline of his skill only to downsize as they start to get a handle on the first one?

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


Yes, I agree

[fasted3 0]

Quote

Who then, would you suggest is more qualified to make judgments about canopies and canopy performance than high-time high-performance canopy pilots.

At my home DZ all aspects of safety are handled by the DZO, S&TA, staff, senior jumpers, and junior jumpers, in that order. I have participated in one case myself, as I felt someone was acting in an unsafe manner. I brought it to the attention of the right people, after trying unsuccessfully to deal with it myself, and it was taken care of.
I think this system is working pretty well, and no regs from headquarters are really needed. The way it works is, if you're screwing up, fix it. Jump numbers are not a big part of it.
I've seen things change with the wingsuit BSR, so now it's more, you have enough jumps, have at it. Overall, I don't see an improvement there, and it may even be less rigorus than it was before. Unintended consequences and all that...
I believe you have good intentions, but I'm not really convinced that you have the best answer.
To anticipate your response, I think you will say that it's fine at places where it works, but some places are not as good. I agree with that, and if a place is not good enough at it, I'll just go somewhere else.
So I am not questioning your motives, just pointing out that your suggestion only addresses 25% of the problem, at an unknown cost to people that may not need it at all. I remember one guy that learned more about wingsuit flying in 5 jumps than I knew in 35 flights. What was a good rule for me, (about flying in flocks,) was not needed for him. I would not want a rule to hold him back just because it was a good rule for me. It's easy to just make a BSR that tells talented people tough shit, but I don't like it.

But what do I know?