Wingload BSR.

[billvon 2,391]

>so you can look at someone and tell if they are loading at 1.2 vs 1.3 or 1.4??

I can tell the difference between 1.0 and 1.4. If I were suspicious I could look at their canopy (the number's right there) and then look at their waiver.

>but if the ST&A's,DZO's and instructors cant be trusted now to
> evaluate the people around them and ground those who are
> obviously 'at risk' because of poor canopy control skills, what make
> you think they are more likely to tell some one "you cant jump that
> because the BSR says so..."

Because you can't evaluate whether or not someone at 50 jumps can safely jump a 2:1 stiletto without letting them jump it - and if they do jump it, and they survive the landing, there will be a fight. Every single time. I've had such fights.

With a weight based system you can ask them what canopy they are jumping and see how much they weigh.

>scales outside of the loading area?

Hmm. Every DZ I've ever been at has a scale to see if tandem students meet the weight limits.

>so if i lose 5 pound this week
>i'm ok, but a big BBQ dinner the night before and i cant fly??

You could ask the same question about pull altitudes. "What, if I pull at 1999 feet I get grounded?" No - most people have more common sense than that, and if you gain weight such that you're loading your canopy at 1.21 to 1, that's probably OK. If you lay off for the winter then come back 20 pounds overweight (and uncurrent) then yes, it could be an issue.

[skytash 0]

First I want to congratulate Ron on actually writing to his country's association and acting on what he thinks rather than just whining about an issue and that it is being overlooked.

I do have a concern with this proposed BSR, jump numbers do not imply knowledge. You run the risk that people will downsize on jump numbers 201, 301 etc when they have not necessarily got the skills to do so, just the permission.

[sarcasm]According to statistics presented at a BPA AGM a few years ago, the people most at risk of landing injuries are female first jumpers who are overweight and over forty and male experienced jumpers with between 200 and 500 jumps (fear and testosterone/ego respectively being considered as possibly causes for this pattern ) - perhaps we should just not permit those categories to jump at all or only on REALLY big canopies [/sarcasm]

Having looked at the USPA student training programme, I was impressed that it includes canopy control elements. Coaching this skill as well as freefall skills is the way forward. The associations should spend more time on the canopy control issue and by raising the issue with the people who may be able to do something about it you are doing better than those who just complain about the canopy control issue in forums like this one.

tash

Don't ever save anything for a special occasion. Being alive is a special occasion. Avril Sloe

[Jessica 0]

What about higher-performance canopies? Is a Stiletto at 1.1 safer than a Spectre at 1.2?

Skydiving is for cool people only

[Ron 7]

The Dutch have regulations.
Swedish
Norway
I think Austraila as well.

Any body know more info or of others?

Ron

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

[billvon 2,391]

> do have a concern with this proposed BSR, jump numbers do not
> imply knowledge. You run the risk that people will downsize on jump
> numbers 201, 301 etc when they have not necessarily got the skills
> to do so, just the permission.

I agree 100%. This will not get them the knowledge they need to fly the canopies well; it will just help keep them alive until they _do_ learn how to fly them. Someone with 300 jumps may not have the skill to fly a 1.3 to 1 canopy, but they are far more likely to survive under that canopy than under a 2 to 1 canopy (which is what's happening now.)

>perhaps we should just not permit those categories to jump at all
>or only on REALLY big canopies . . .

We sort of do that now. Uncurrent people run a much higher risk, and many places require them to make a student jump under a large canopy if they return to the sport after a long break (if they have low jump numbers.) No, no DZ will ever place restrictions on sex or age or race or religion because those topics are too politically charged.

[fundgh 0]

Now I need to know more info. Are there recommended canopoy styles, designs, materials that should go along with size? What canopy should I be flying at 60 jumps - Sabre, Spectre, Saphire, Sabre 2? I am concerned and thinking about upsizing? I don't know that the instructors I had for AFF gave me the complete low-down on what I should be flying.

...FUN FOR ALL!

[wmw999 2,119]

I'd say if we try to get too specific we'll get a whole lot more folks trying to break the rules for breaking the rules' sake than if we treat it like the minimum opening altitudes. There aren't different altitudes for slower vs. faster-opening canopies, right?

We treat it as a survival skill, assume most people will treat it like that. Some won't, and there are folks who like to take it low, too.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Jessica 0]

Quote

Someone with 300 jumps may not have the skill to fly a 1.3 to 1 canopy, but they are far more likely to survive under that canopy than under a 2 to 1 canopy (which is what's happening now.)

Also, maybe people would spend more time under a lower-wingloaded canopy instead of downsizing when they hit 201, 301, etc., since selling and buying canopies is expensive and time-consuming.

Right now, people buy canopies that they plan to "grow into" so they won't "get bored." Maybe this would encourage people to actually spend some time learning how to fly.

You know, my kneejerk reaction is that I support this. I'll think on it.

Skydiving is for cool people only

[Jessica 0]

A logistics question -- would people who already are skydivers get exempted? Or would this force half the skydivers out there to sell their gear?

If that's the case, I don't think this would ever fly.

However, I do think that it could be implemented for new jumpers. Sorta like in 2000, I only had to make seven jumps to graduate AFF and be able to do whatever I wanted, but then the ISP was introduced and you gotta have an A license to even do RW with a non-rating holder. (Under USPA rules, anyway.)

Skydiving is for cool people only

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

That being said, I would also be fine with a way to "opt out" of the above restrictions by going through a canopy control course. That way the option is yours.

Graduated drivers ed. Sounds like a good idea.

Folks, we don't have to re-invent the wheel. Just look at what goes on with airplanes. In order to fly a certain aircraft you have to go through a supervised check out. What's wrong with that idea here in skydiving? Does it infringe on your freedom? Too bad. Your freedom doesn't give you the right to make me scoop your dead body up off the ground to try and give you CPR with blood spurting out.

Education is the key. But since the current group of instructors accross this country do not seem on whole to want to follow the USPA ISP and actually teach canopy control there has to be action in some other manor. I don't disagree with Ron's idea of canopy wing loading restrictions. I think it would be a hard sell and tougher to enforce. But then again, anything worth doing is never easy. It's always hard.

I like Bill's idea of "opt out" by performing to a designated examiner. oh my word! Did you know they have designated examiners for Jump Masters too!??? I guess it's not a stretch to set up a system where it would be easy to verify instruction along a designated canopy training course with student training. We just have to make USPA enforce the canopy training part of the ISP. So, we are back to self regulating. And that is what Ron is trying to do. We can choose to have a self regulation in order to recognize that the canopies of today are not the canopies of yesterday. Things do have to change. This is one way in which it could change.

My pilot certificate says ATP (airline transport pilot); type rated: CL-65 (Canadair Regional Jet). I also have single engine and multi-engine commercial privileges. Oh my word! You mean it's a Privilege to be in the air? I guess that means I have a due care to be smart while in the air huh?

Those who can't show maturity with a privilege will have it stripped from them.

That's all I have to say about that now.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

A logistics question -- would people who already are skydivers get exempted? Or would this force half the skydivers out there to sell their gear?

Usually in situations like this, the experienced jumpers will be "grandfathered". This means they are allowed to jump their current configuration. In all likelihood there would be a stipulation that when you change your main, you have to follow the regulations.

[billvon 2,391]

>Are there recommended canopoy styles, designs, materials that
>should go along with size?

Yep. First off I'd stick to ZP - they are not inherently harder to fly than F111, and will last longer. On ZP canopies, the 'forgiveness' factor ranges from square 7-cells (i.e. the Triathalon) to highly elliptical 9-cells (i.e. Stiletto.) At a given size I'd rate 'forgiveness' factor like this:

Triathalon
Spectre
Silhouette
Sabre 1, Monarch
Sabre 2, Pilot
Safire
Stiletto

>What canopy should I be flying at 60 jumps - Sabre, Spectre,
> Saphire, Sabre 2?

At this point, what you're used to is probably the best option, as long as it's sized correctly. Of that list, the Spectre is the most forgiving,

>I don't know that the instructors I had for AFF gave me the complete
>low-down on what I should be flying.

An AFF JM in an AFF course doesn't usually do that; advanced canopy training usually comes later in the ISP.

[Ron 7]

Current owners would be allowed to keep what they have now.
It is the only way it could work.

The thing is this...People that this will affect will complain. I am betting just like people who used to pull low fought like hell to not have minumum pull altitudes...Now we don't complain about them, in fact several people think they should be raised.

The people with 100-500 jumps will be upset..The guy with 50 jumps will not really care. Once the 100-500 jump people get to 500...I doubt they will care either. So in 2-3 years it will be accepted, and not even questioned.

As for type of canopy....Well the Dutch regulations go into this...And to be honest I think it is not needed. The type of canopy is not such a factor as wingload. I jumped a Specter 107 the other day...I was impressed at the speed of it. I thought it dove harder than my Stiletto 107. Its speed, not type that is the biggest issue.
Also as soon as you start going into types of canopies...now you have to have a list...As soon as you have a list you have to have it updated whenever a new canopy comes out. And now you have to have someone who updates the canopy list..More work for the USPA.

I think the Jump # to wingload BSR will work....Yes, some people will be held back till they get more jumps, and people will still get hurt. But I think it will be at a reduced rate, and taking a step progression never killed anyone...Skiping steps has.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a better more fair plan....

I personally think that a checkout could be performed to allow people to downsize...I am a big fan of the PRO rating requirements...If you can take the canopy you have now, and land it 10 times in a 30 foot circle 10 times in a row and stand up all 10 landings...Then you could downsize one size.
This would be a put up, or shut up test. Fail, and you have to try again later. I have done this on a ST120, Star Trac I, Sharpchutter, ST107, Extreme 88, Velocity 96..ect.

But then you would have buddies pencil whip it for people..

Truth...I never had live water training till the Army.

So it happens.

Ron

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

[sarge 0]

Quote

.The Dutch have regulations.

> Dutch Regs

Hey Ron, You may also remember the lengthy discussion we had on this [related] subject in "Dead Man Walking?"

In that dialoge we were debating at length the idea of imposing training regs.ie:canopy courses as requirements for canopy downsizing. et al

If I recall, your comments on that subject had something to do with that the USPA would unlikely not being willing to go to the extra effort of imposing such regulations [even if they could be enforced] ... so your newest proposal kind of seems like the same flavor with a different twist. ie:canopy regs based on some modus of experience. But still stuck on trying to oversimplify it by imposing minimum jump numbers... I believe its a pandoras box.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either idea if it is well thought-out and implemented and enforced. I applaud your continued enthusiasm and interest in improving canopy safety.

However, in yet another discussion, we talked about self-policing and being 'Anti-regulations' of any sort.

How the heck are we ever going to find any agreement on these questions?

[Ron 7]

Well the thing is I don't personally think it has a chance of getting passed.

USPA does not like to regulate....However while the ISP program is a step in the right direction, I don't think it will affect the people who are at the highest risk.

Education is the best answer....However I don't see how a program can be put into place that will cover ALL DZ's, and ALL pilots (Remember some people don't ever want to swoop...Should we make them learn to pass a course?), and that can be done by ANY instructor.

The closest I have ever seen is the PRO program I wrote about in another post. If people feel strongly enough...hell include it, but I think it will just create more work, and greater liability. (Im sueing you because you signed me off to fly this canopy...You said I would be safe.)

A jump # to wingload plan is easy to use...
It is easy to understand...
It will reduce injuries/fatalities....

Ron

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

[ladyskydiver 0]

Quote

The people with 100-500 jumps will be upset.

I've got 111 jumps. My wingloading is 0.91 to 1 - 130 lbs., 25 lbs. of gear (yes, I weighed it ), Silhouette 170. (And, as I stated, I'm not in a hurry to downsize.)

What bothers me about your proposal is that it seems like more regulation. Since it was pointed out that we already have canopy control items in the SIM's, instead of adding more regulation, why not just enforce what we have? We've got the S&TA's signing off on our licenses as well as our JM's. They are saying it's ok for people to move to the next step in their training. Instead of adding a whole other BSR, why not add another line to the A license checklist (and continue through all licenses as desired) to make sure that people can handle their current canopies like what you quoted below?

Quote

I personally think that a checkout could be performed to allow people to downsize...I am a big fan of the PRO rating requirements...If you can take the canopy you have now, and land it 10 times in a 30 foot circle 10 times in a row and stand up all 10 landings...Then you could downsize one size.
This would be a put up, or shut up test. Fail, and you have to try again later. I have done this on a ST120, Star Trac I, Sharpchutter, ST107, Extreme 88, Velocity 96..ect.

Wouldn't that do the same thing as your proposed BSR?

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[Ron 7]

Quote

What bothers me about your proposal is that it seems like more regulation.

Like pull altitudes....20 jumps to do CRW....Night jumps for the "D"....AAD's for students....RSL's for students (Unless you are Perris, someone explain that one to me)......Wind limits.....Landing area sizes.....Water training.....ect...

We already have tons of regulations....Someone wrote that the BSR's are written in blood...How much blood does it take to write a new one?

Quote

Since it was pointed out that
we already have canopy control items in the SIM's, instead of adding more regulation, why not just enforce
what we have?

Because it is a problem that is not covered by the ones we already have. The ISP will not keep a guy with 300 jumps from hooking it in under a 1.8 loaded canopy.

Quote

Instead of adding a whole other BSR, why not add
another line to the A license checklist (and continue through all licenses as desired) to make sure that
people can handle their current canopies like what you quoted below?

What would be the difference between a new BSR, and a checkout for a license? Nothing. The standard has to be set. The BSR would do this.

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

[AndyMan 7]

Brian Germaine's method.

The problem I have with it is that it puts the hundred pound girl into the same category as the two-twenty pound guy.

Canopies do not scale linearly. The effects of wing-loading do not scale linearly.

A fat-ass can jump at 1.2 with 40 jumps just as safely as a lightweight at .8

Any canopy regulation needs to reflect this fact of aerodynamics.

I would much rather see more stringent canopy control lessons being manditory.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[sarge 0]

We've got Dzs that have "No Hook Turn" rules others that have minimum canopy sizes (no matter what the experience level) and types/locations of jumps that require minimum license requirements.

>Education is the best answer...

I whole-heartedly agree!!! -with proficiency demonstrations- But the PRO rating system to qualify for downsizing doesn't seem practical or realistic for at least a few reasons!

On a day-to-day basis at most Dzs, the resident culture of that DZ generally dictates the type and style of canopy used and how it is flown. It seems that somebody wanting to fit in to the 'cool' crowd is going to have more issues at a DZ where swooping is popular. But then again, vast exposure to skilled and experienced swoopers that are there to identify these issues. Because what are we really talking about here? Swooping.

>Remember some people don't ever want to swoop...Should we make them learn to pass a course?

-Yes- ... why not?

Non-swoopers are not interested in heavy wingloading, (none that I know anyway...) but they'll have a reserve 10-30' smaller than their main? ...._what_about_them... Yes, now do we just ignore reserve size if somebody opts out of the heavier wingloading catagory? I read recently about how (was it Eloy) got a bunch of reserves for people to demo, very few of the smaller ones got jumped because jumpers felt they were too small- even though they had the very same reserve locked up in their rig??? WTF??

> A jump # to wingload plan is easy to use...
>It is easy to understand...
>It will reduce injuries/fatalities....

And you can't just say, "Well this pilot has over 10,000 hours flying planes like 747s,767s etc, sure he shouldn't have to check out on this Cherokee he's never flown before..." True story, the guy crashed, killing himself and his three passengers... cause he ran out of gas!!! Geez!

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

[rhino 0]

The USPA will never go for it. Nor will the skydiving community. You cannot blanket judge jumpers like that. at 375 jumps I am at 1.95 and there I will stay. Having 375 jumps says NOTHING for my canopy skills.

Rhino

[Jessica 0]

Quote

A fat-ass can jump at 1.2 with 40 jumps just as safely as a lightweight at .8

I'm familiar with the non-linear scaling of canopy sizes, but that sounds really extreme to me. I doubt that's accurate.

Anyway, one would hope that in the rare case of the 90-lb jumper, instructors and staff would help him or her choose a safe canopy. There's a woman at my dropzone who probably doesn't weigh 100 lbs, and she's having a hell of a time trying to get them to let her jump something at 1:1.

Skydiving is for cool people only

[billvon 2,391]

>A fat-ass can jump at 1.2 with 40 jumps just as safely as a
>lightweight at .8

And a fat-ass will hurt himself a lot more easily than a light (in-shape) woman in any given impact.

I agree with what you're saying - but these guidelines are not intended to put people under ideal wing loadings. They are intended to keep people off unsafe wing loadings (until they get canopy training per my addendum) and thus are chosen to be conservative enough to protect both the lightweight and the lardass.

[rhino 0]

Personally I think MUCH MUCH more emphasis on canopy control should be included in AFF. Like maybe 5 hop-n-pops from altitude where TONS of flares and flat turns should be done. Building strength in the arms where it needs to be. Making the students feel more comfortable in the harness. Having done 5 hop-n-pops and flared 50 times or so will do WONDERS for new canopy pilots.

It needs to be done in initial training not in gustapo canopy regulating.

Rhino

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Well the thing is I don't personally think it has a chance of getting passed.

USPA does not like to regulate....However while the ISP program is a step in the right direction, I don't think it will affect the people who are at the highest risk.

The USPA does not like to regulate, but they do like to make money - yes make money. If you can present this to them in a way they can make money, I would guess they would jump all over it. But if the USPA is making money then someone has to dish it out and its more money the students have to come up with.

I am am a pretty conservative canopy pilot, and I have a tendency to freak out when I see someone jumping something I don't think they should jump.

Like Diverdriver said, it would involve more examiners. There are too many "old school" teachers out there not giving out all the canopy information they should. It's not necessarily on purpose, but just habit.

I hope what you presented to the USPA will at least be discussed at the next BOD meeting. You have given them a good place to at least start.

Good Luck!

Judy

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

[CanuckInUSA 0]

It seems that every week there's a new thread, but the same topic. On one hand I do think constantly bringing up this topic of canopy choice is good because it reinforces the seriousness of the topic (and maybe a new person will come along and the light will go off in their head). But on the other hand it gets a little old hearing the same thing over and over again by the same people on both sides of the table.

I don't know what the solution is, but I think peer pressure from our friends, instructors and coaches to NOT downsize too quickly is likely the logical answer. If more canopy control courses were offered, people would be more skilled and less people would be getting hurt. But those courses seem to be few and far between. So we are pretty much left to fend for ourselves and learn through trial and error.

One thing is for sure, skydivers with years of experience have been getting hurt under these pocket rocket canopies. So the problem doesn't just lie with the inexperienced. Of course the experienced people are less likely to put themselves in a dicey situation.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over