Wingload BSR.

[Jessica 0]

Quote

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.

But the thing is, that DOESN'T work. Unfortunately, the converse is true -- peer pressure among jumpers is to downsize as quick as you can. God forbid you be "bored" under canopy.

Skydiving is for cool people only

[skybytch 259]

Quote

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.

Yeah, peer pressure. Peer pressure now is to fly something small so you won't get bored - god forbid you should be bored under canopy! It should be to fly something big until you know what the fuck you're doing.

Until every skydiver, instructor, rigger, gear seller, etc., is advising new jumpers to fly something they can fuck up under and still live, and every new jumper gets state of the art canopy control training both as a student and after, it will continue to work just as well as it is now. Which is to put new jumpers under canopies that they can't handle when the shit hits the fan.

Quote

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.

No one is saying that more experienced jumpers aren't getting hurt under those canopies. No one is saying that there aren't people with thousands of jumps who need canopy control training as much or maybe more than the 100 jumps wonders who want to jump 1.5 wing loadings.

The likelihood of someone with 1000 jumps surviving a bad situation under a 1.5 wingloading is much higher than the chances someone with 100 jumps has of surviving the same "shit happened" scenario under the same wingloading - because chances are good that person with 1000 jumps has seen the same shit happen before.

imho the number of skydivers with under 500 jumps and skydiving-related titanium in their bones is totally unacceptable. Not to mention the ones that are dead now.

What we're doing now isn't working. Regardless of whether it's wingloading regulation, education or a combination of both... something needs to change before someone's mad mother comes along and insists on REAL regulation.

[Steel 0]

Have you been to Amsterdam the capital of Holland, the most pornographic, highest drug using city in the world. (Great example to learn from) Or Sweden the most socialist country in all of Europe, another big bunch of sickoes. I don't want to offend Norway cause I have good freinds from there. But I will say that if you had been to these places, as I have, or if you knew more about them. Atleast then you would know that to use them as a model for our policy is just silly. We are more likely the ones that should be setting the example for the rest of the world.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[BMFin 0]

In Finland We have limits that allows us to jump these canopies @ 1.34 max if we have less than 250 jumps.After 250 we are only regulated by peer pressure.

In other hand this is a good system, but on the other hand this seems to lead in to a situation when every new C-licence holder buys a canopy loaded @ 1.3. Most people here dont seem to remember that this is the maximum we are allowed. It is not the ideal for everyone just got their C-licence. IMO Some people can handle it @ 1.3 after 50 jumps and others cant... Those who cant, should realize that they cant.. But they wont since they seem to think: "Im safe as long as Im playing by the rules."

Im talking about C-licence because we have a different system there also. We get A-licence after 6 jumps. B-licence after 30 jumps and C-licence after 48 jumps (if there is no need to jump any levels again.) After C-licence we are ready jump on our own. (this is IAD system. We also train with the AFF system but it is also different than in the US.) Also it tends to be so that after 250 people will immediedly buy a stiletto loaded more than 1.3, And thats not good always either. As I said some can handle it some others cant.

About this system:

1.1 100jumps
1.2 200jumps
.
.
1.5 500jumps

I wouldnt like that too much. Since I truly belive that there are a lot of people who can safely jump higher Wingloadings sooner.. It would not be fair to make the rules by the weakest link.. The big question is : Where to draw the line of safety ? Since we can never prevent every incident from happening unless we stop skydiving completely.

[FlyGuy 0]

I agree that something needs to be done, but I don't have the answer either. The problem I see with your proposal is that we don't even have a standard of measurement for canopies, so how do you accurately measure wingloading? A 150 from one manufacturer is closer to a 170 but from another is closer to a 135. I recall a discussion about canopy sizing before.

I think that the answer is in better education. I know that when I went through AFF less than 2 years ago, very little was discussed about canopy control.

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Have you been to Amsterdam the capital of Holland, the most pornographic, highest drug using city in the world. (Great example to learn from) Or Sweden the most socialist country in all of Europe, another big bunch of sickoes. I don't want to offend Norway cause I have good freinds from there. But I will say that if you had been to these places, as I have, or if you knew more about them. Atleast then you would know that to use them as a model for our policy is just silly. We are more likely the ones that should be setting the example for the rest of the world.

Im glad you took this example about Holland. I also have been in Holland and Sweden many times. In holland people use much less cannabis than in the U.S. Dutch ministry of traffic (im not sure about the correct term of the ministry) did a study together with the dutch ministry of health about cannabis usage in holland compared to US. Now we all know U.S has VERY hard policy on drugs. You can get sentenced BIG TIME for posession in US. And as we know holland has the most liberal policy on soft drugs.

They made a query on people over 12 years and among many other questions they asked these:

1. Have you ever used cannabis ?

2. Have you used cannabis in the last 12 months ?


Question 1 :
Dutch 34% YES
US 54% YES

Question 2:
Dutch 3.5% YES
US 5.5% YES


YES a county that has no legal restrictions on cannabis uses less cannabis than a country that has propably the most Strict policy.

This just proves the law of the forbidden fruit. I would belive it also applies to downsizing too.

I would definetly give people more resposibility. They respect these issues much more once they understand its only up to them selves.

[Steel 0]

I believe what you say in that making something illegal makes some people want to do it more. And obviously the idea of making policies on wingloading is something I am opposed to. But just for the record, although I don't doubt that those statistics you mention may have indeed been collected somehow, I still find doubt on their accuracy. If you walk through the streets of Amsterdam the amount of roaches (bud or last part of a marijuana cigarette) is higher than any other city I have ever been to. I have been to the biggest cities of 18 different countries (Milan, Paris, Rome, Moscow, Minsk, Budapest, Athens, Berlin, Vienna, Prague, Warsaw, Ottawa, {NYC well I am from there}, just to name a few) and there is no question that no other city even came close to Amsterdam in physical evidence that people there were smoking canabis/marijuana. And I am sure everybody knows about the coffee shops.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[billvon 2,400]

>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.

Tried that; it doesn't work. They ignore you. They jump somewhere else. You get called a canopy nazi and people seek out (and find) the one instructor who thinks it's OK to jump that 2 to 1 canopy at 200 jumps.

>If more canopy control courses were offered, people would be more
> skilled and less people would be getting hurt.

Agreed. They don't exist in most places because there are no requirements for them.

>So we are pretty much left to fend for ourselves and learn
>through trial and error.

If that's the case, we need some way to prevent the guy with 40 jumps from jumping the Stiletto 97. "Hey, don't jump that thing" doesn't work. About the only thing stopping people from jumping such things today are death or permanent disability; seems like a bad system.

[billvon 2,400]

>Have you been to Amsterdam the capital of Holland, the most
>pornographic, highest drug using city in the world.

I have. The people there are great. Violent crime is low - 1.9 murders per 100,000 people vs 9.5 in the US. Fewer kids use drugs in Amsterdam than in the US. What was your point again?

[Steel 0]

Fewer kids on drugs than the US, I don't think so. And I don't have anything against Dutch people anyway I enjoyed my visit to that city quite a bit. But after living for 9 months in Europe and getting to know people for many European countries I understood quite clearly why other European countries were ify about having Holland in the European Union. They know the Dutch are totally carefree, careless people and don't want all the undesireables coming in through Holland simply because the Dutch don't care. So my point was these are not people we should be learning from. Instead these are people who should be learning from us.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[billvon 2,400]

>Fewer kids on drugs than the US, I don't think so.

5% of children 15 or younger have used MJ in Amsterdam; 13% of US children have tried it by that age.

http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/sandwijk.prvasd94.06.pdf
http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/2k2/YouthMJuse/YouthMJuse.htm


>They know the Dutch are totally carefree, careless people . . .

I would agree with the carefree part; I know quite a few Dutch who are not careless. Given that they live in a country where a broken _pump_ could kill people and destroy whole towns, that's sort of a funny thing to say.

>Instead these are people who should be learning from us.

Hmm. Lower crime? No billion dollar war on crime - and still less drug usage? What would they learn from us, exactly? How to kill drug dealers?

And what does this have to do with a canopy loading BSR?

[Steel 0]

Well then I guess it must be the adults who don't know any better because with all the roaches all over the streets of Amsterdam somebody must be smoking it. Or are you telling me its the American tourists?

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Jessica 0]

What does this have to do with having a wingloading BSR? Even if Amsterdam were the filthiest city on Earth, that wouldn't make having canopy size guidelines bad. It's silly logic.

Skydiving is for cool people only

[billvon 2,400]

>because with all the roaches all over the streets of Amsterdam somebody must be smoking it.

Uh, it's illegal in the US. That means that if you get caught you go to jail. That means that people hide the fact that they do it. They don't hide it in Amsterdam so you see more of it.

[BMFin 0]

Quote

I believe what you say in that making something illegal makes some people want to do it more. And obviously the idea of making policies on wingloading is something I am opposed to. But just for the record, although I don't doubt that those statistics you mention may have indeed been collected somehow, I still find doubt on their accuracy. If you walk through the streets of Amsterdam the amount of roaches (bud or last part of a marijuana cigarette) is higher than any other city I have ever been to. I have been to the biggest cities of 18 different countries (Milan, Paris, Rome, Moscow, Minsk, Budapest, Athens, Berlin, Vienna, Prague, Warsaw, Ottawa, {NYC well I am from there}, just to name a few) and there is no question that no other city even came close to Amsterdam in physical evidence that people there were smoking canabis/marijuana. And I am sure everybody knows about the coffee shops.

Okay I have visited about 25 different countrys in Europe only. And Yes ! It is true that you really can see alot of drug users in DAM especially around the Central Train Station and around the Red light district. But the reason is that Amsterdam gets a huge amount of tourists attracted by the coffee shops. I also admit that there are many hard drug users in the red light district, But there is a reason for this also. In Holland you can test the purity of your drug in a laboratory for free (cocaine, extacy, Heroine..) anonymously and noone will arrest you. This is to get the bad shit out from the streets. Due to this a lot of people addicted to heroin come to Amsterdam because they can have a longer life this way. They can test their stuff and they wont have to be afraid of going to be sentenced as long as they are not selling.

It is not the Dutch you see using drugs in Ams. Its the foreigners

Also please remember that it is just a lot more visible in Ams then in other places. In other places people have to do it hidden..

[BMFin 0]

Quote

What does this have to do with having a wingloading BSR? Even if Amsterdam were the filthiest city on Earth, that wouldn't make having canopy size guidelines bad. It's silly logic.

This is a question about the effects of liberal policy..

[d604 0]

Education and regulation might be your best bet to get something like this passed. In Canada we have a Sport Canopy Endorsement that a skydiver needs to get before getting their A CoP, and then a review of this endorsement before getting their B CoP. This endorsement covers topics like high performance parachutes, wing loading, and a whole mess of other stuff that can be covered. Although, the skydiver is taught what they should jump given their experience, and other factors there is no rule or even a recommendation about max wing loading.

So trying to include an endorsement for your A CoP might be your best bet, but I believe USPA just revamped their CoPs so if its not in their now you most likely not get it soon. Also, having a condition like the reply from the skydiver from Finland where there is a limit for B CoP skydivers and under, then once they get their C its up to them to make up their mind.

Sean

[markbaur 0]

Have any regulationists suggested limits which would prevent themselves from jumping their current canopies? Or is it only other people who are unsafe?

Mark

[wmw999 2,122]

Actually, the, erm, regulationists are saying that anyone who is currently jumping a canopy that's outside of the specs would be grandfathered.

So no, we're not trying crap in anyone's current nest. Just trying to prevent people from making future plans that increase significantly the likelihood of their crapping in their own.

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)

[crazy 0]

Some time ago i already made similar comments about your analysis, but you never acknowledged the problem. So i ask again: why did you select the year 2002?
If you select 2001, the results are very different. From the Us fatalities in 2001, i got:

num - jumps - WL (lb/ft^2) - comments
# 6 - 4700 - 2.0 - straight in approach, no flare (lost toggle?)
#7 - 1 - ?? - backed up ino a hangar
#13 - 900+ - 1.5 - low turn
#15 - lots - ?? - After a CRW jump, front riser + lost toggle
#17 - 40 - 1.1 - low turn to avoid power lines
#21 - Experienced - ?? - low turn
#23 - 80 - ?? - landing out in steep hills and obstacles
#24 - 31000 - 1.4 - canopy collapse
#25 - ?? - ?? - a 63 years old guy during a demo jump
#31 - 201 - 1.3 - hit a roof, back from a long spot

Your rule would apply only to #17 and #31, reducing the WL by 0.1, something insignificant, unlikely to save them. Both cases involve hazards, hence, better training and safer operations would be much more efficient than regulations about WL.
60% of these accidents are experienced or very experienced skydivers. Are you going to ask the USPA to regulate for experienced skydivers as well? In that case, the limit should be less than 1.4 for everybody, just to be on the safe side, right?
Even "lost toggles" seems to be a more serious issue than WL in that list. Shall we add mandatory velcro gloves for everybody?
40% (likely 50%) of these fatalities involve hazards. Don't you think that there is something there?

Apparently your analysis is biased because your sample is not really representative of the reality. It is based on the data from only one year.

If you are that motivated to get the USPA involved (i object strongly on this point), then you should do a bit more homework. Did you check the fatality rates in other countries (apparently you use the fact that other countries regulate, as an argument for the regulation by the USPA). My personal guess is that the rate of landing fatalities is not directly related to the regulation. Denmark has one and also has an average rate of landing fatalities (right?); France has no regulation and a very low rate of landing fatalities (don' go there you'll get a heart attack for the WL and the toggle hook turns).

An other objection is that WL is an extremely poor indicator of the risk (you could include the planform factor as well). In addition, when the technology and the training will improve, the values will become outdated and there will be more endless discussions to decide arbitrarily if 1.23 is an appropriate WL for someone with 200 jumps.

Proper training, set of mind, and the supervision is way more efficient than arbitrary rules. Define a training program, or a high performance canopy licence, and you will probably get more support (including mine).
Well, training programs exist since the mid-90s, so, what we really need is their application.

--
Come
Skydive Asia

[Mad47 0]

Dude, check out the profile of the person you are arguing with. Listening more to people like Ron before screaming to the whole world that we know a lot will probably help people like us to become old skydivers.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Apparently your analysis is biased because your sample is not really representative of the reality. It is based on the data from only one year.

....
Proper training, set of mind, and the supervision is way more efficient than arbitrary rules. Define a training program, or a high performance canopy licence, and you will probably get more support (including mine).
Well, training programs exist since the mid-90s, so, what we really need is their application.

thanks, i've been trying to point out again and again that the sample size we are talking about is to small to draw conclusions from, ut because this is an emotionally charged issue (you know people DIE..OMG) some people want instant regulation without really looking at the complete numbers..

there are alot of other factors that need to be considered EVEN when you are looking at a single year..(currency on canopy type and wingloading, weather conditions, apparent landing skills on previous canopies etc..)

everyone keeps saying "look at other countries!?!" well this isnt an other country, how many jumps per year are made in those other countries? how does that compare to the fatality rate?

i think we can all agree its a tragedy when someone dies from nearly any cause, however we should use them as an examples of why people need training when making canopy recommendations....sure your still going to get egoists who dont think the guidelines apply to them or that the need to get training...and they should simply continue to provide examples to those with 'better sense' who are interesting in being able to jump again tomorrow

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

[wmw999 2,122]

If you include serious accidents as well as deaths, there are a lot more serious, even devastating, injuries under perfectly good but misflown canopies than before.

I used to jump a lot in the days of "dangerous" round, up to when squares were comparatively low-performance but common (1985 or so). "femur" was not a verb in those days. I don't remember anyone crippling themself. I remember one really serious head injury from a landing, and a significant (but nowhere close to large) number of broken ankles.

Yes, this is anecdotal. But there's a whole lot of anecdotal evidence out there.
If regulation isn't the way to deal with the seeming glut of injuries, do you know someone who will step up to helping with all the canopy control classes, coaching, and peer pressure to keep folks on safer wingloadings for them?

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)

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

Education is the key.

I think it was last year on the east coast that a genius scientist type double front riser dived hitting the ground at roughly the same time as his canopy if I recall correctly. If anyone understood dynamics (acceleration) it would have been this unfortunate soul. However, years of education in the physical sciences didn't influence his judgment under a canopy.

These hard landing incidents are nothing different than those dashing gentlemen with waxed mustaches stepping off the Eiffel Towel with "wings" lashed to their arms while the ladies in umbrella dresses waited below.

[billvon 2,400]

>i think we can all agree its a tragedy when someone dies from nearly
>any cause, however we should use them as an examples of why people
> need training when making canopy recommendations.

That hasn't worked yet. What do you propose to change to make that work in the future?

>and they should simply continue to provide examples to those with
>'better sense' who are interesting in being able to jump again tomorrow.

An argument that skydivers should continue to die at the same rate so that others might, out of fear, try to avoid the same fate, doesn't carry much weight with me (or with most of the people I jump with.) I've known some of those 'examples' you refer to, and the sport is not better off after their deaths.