Wingload BSR.

[markbaur 0]

Quote

Can we agree that something needs to be done?

How about banning swoop ponds, swoop competitions, the PST, and any surf longer than 20 feet?

Mark

[skybytch 259]

Quote

How about banning swoop ponds, swoop competitions, the PST, and any surf longer than 20 feet?

Not gonna happen. Swooping is here to stay. We aren't going to stop our new jumpers from wanting to be like JC. If I were 15 years younger, I'd want to be like JC!

Since swooping isn't going away, doesn't it make sense to give our newbies a safe and sane progression from first jump to swooping the pond? Which organization in the US is the logical choice to come up with and oversee such a training progression? Which part of what we're doing now is working? How do we make quality advanced canopy control training available to every person with 20 jumps and a desire to swoop without USPA's involvement?

[Ron 7]

Quote

How about banning swoop ponds, swoop competitions, the PST, and any surf longer than 20 feet?

Or we could could just troll when people are trying to do something good for everyone. Then we can bury our heads in the sand and pretend there is not a problem.

Ron

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

[markbaur 0]

Quote

Or we could could just troll..

I'm not trolling. Your claim is that peer pressure causes unqualified jumpers to use canopies they're not prepared for. Part of that peer pressure is watching cool jumpers dragging a toe through the swoop pond -- or seeing reports of swoop competitions in Parachutist. They see the behavior, they seek to emulate it. If you are serious about reducing the pressure to downsize, you'd at least consider de-glamorizing fast canopies.

Mark

[VectorBoy 0]

Should they ban 1200 jump veterans that face plant 50% of the time? Who will do the inspections? Would jumpers be able to lie about what gear they are jumping? Its really not their job you know. Its YOUR job not to kill YOURSELF. lets try that for a change.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Should they ban 1200 jump veterans that face plant 50% of the time?

They should be told to get more training. But if they are face planting, and not getting carried away to the hospital...It is not my concern.

Quote

Who will do the inspections?

S&TA's, or I's and DZO's.

Quote

Would
jumpers be able to lie about what gear they are jumping?

Yep just like what happens now with out of date reserves.

Quote

Its really not their job you know. Its YOUR job
not to kill YOURSELF. lets try that for a change.

We have been trying it for a couple of years..Its not working. People are still getting killed.

You could ask why do we have min pull altitudes? Wind limits? Need to have a PRO to do types of demos? Night jumps rules? Rules for CRW...Why do we make students have AAD's and RSL's?

All of these are just rules and toys to make the sport safer. By haveing them you take some personal freedom away, but you add saftey for all.

You see the issue is most 300 jump wonders are 10 feet tall and bullet proof. At least they think they are. They make bad choices because they don't know...But they also don't listen, because they think they know it all.

So as you see...Leaving to the individual jumper is not working, and regulation, like it or not is all around you, and this sport.

Ron

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

[markbaur 0]

Quote

You could ask why do we have min pull altitudes? Wind limits? Need to have a PRO to do types of demos? Night jumps rules? Rules for CRW...Why do we make students have AAD's and RSL's?

One more time: Although the USPA does have minimum pull altitudes for all skydivers, it does not have wind limits for licensed jumpers; the PRO requirements are for the protection of the spectators, not the skydivers; the night jump "rules" are recommendations, not requirements (except for needing to do 2 for a D license), as are the CRW requirements. Requiring equipment for unlicensed jumpers is not the same as requiring equipment for licensed jumpers.

We've done pretty well with the RW/FF/night jump/CRW/etc. recommendations in the SIM, section 6. What we need is your sub-section on Canopy Progression Training. Can you have a draft ready for the S&T Committee's meeting in July?

Mark

[skybytch 259]

Quote

What we need is your sub-section on Canopy Progression Training. Can you have a draft ready for the S&T Committee's meeting in July?

I believe Ron has already been good to his word and has already put out more effort on this than many of his detractors. He made the effort to contact USPA and express his concerns, along with some suggestions for ways to address the issue. Even if I disagreed with him, I'd still have to respect the fact that he cares enough to do something.

Did you read hooknswoop's proposal? Seems like a great starting point for the discussion to me, and every member of the S&T committee has received an email containing it.

I received an email from the committee chairman yesterday stating that the issue will be brought up at the summer meeting.

Speaking only for myself (although I know others share my views), I am not unshakably for regulation - what I am for is whatever will reduce the number of jumpers being injured or killed under perfectly good canopies. And I mean that regardless of the number of jumps the injured or dead person has - I'd be for a requirement that every jumper in the US take an advanced canopy control course.

Regulation is not the ideal choice but it is an option that should be explored.

[billvon 2,400]

>I'd be for a requirement that every jumper in the US take an
>advanced canopy control course.

Hmm. I wouldn't be, because that would expose someone to risk that they don't need to take. I would be for a requirement that anyone who wants to jump, say, a Stiletto 97 at 100 jumps take a canopy control course.

That's one of the issues that's going to come up. You can't learn how to land a high performance canopy without landing a high performance canopy, and that means that you have to have students take risks. "I don't want to risk my life like that, I just want to jump my Spectre 190 forever!" is a valid argument against someone taking a HP canopy class.

[Steel 0]

You know this minimum pull altitude example is getting a bit old. As far as I am concerned the minimum pull altitude is too low as it is. I rarely pull under 3,000. In the past year I have only pulled at 2500 when I have been forced to because its what the old-timer RW guys want to do
It seems to me like passing a law that you can't drink amonia. As I understood it the minimum pull altitudes were not USPA BSRs. It was just USPA's way of explaining hey if you drink enough amonia it will kill you, so don't be stupid. In this case if you pull too low and have a malfunction you won't be able to jump again cause you will die on impact.
Its not like wingloading that could depend on your skill. Its just plain and simple we all get line twists from time to time. (no matter how good you pack or your body position is) If you deploy a 1000 feet then get line twists on a high performance canopy you will die or serious injure yourself. So the comparison does not follow. Its just not the same.

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.

[Michele 1]

Bill, you've lost me.

Am I understanding you right? Only those who believe they should be able to fly a HP canopy should take a canopy class?

If so, you are promulgating a common misconception about canopy classes, and leading some people astray. Canopy class is not necessarily about HP canopies and landings...it's about understanding how what you fly flies, learning life saving techniques, and learning how to not need them in the first place.

Quote

because that would expose someone to risk that they don't need to take.

How did my taking a class expose me to any more risk than throwing myself at the ground repeatedly?

Quote

I just want to jump my Spectre 190 forever!" is a valid argument against someone taking a HP canopy class.

Sorry, Bill....it's not. Again, you're spreading the misconception that a canopy control class is only valid if you want to swoop....uh, kinda like the people who told me to not waste my time/money taking the class 'cause I didn't want to swoop, but just wanted to learn more and be safer.

I really hope I misunderstood your comment...but I don't think I have. Please clarify for me if I have.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 2,400]

> Only those who believe they should be able to fly a HP canopy
> should take a canopy class?

Sorta the opposite. Everyone _should_ take a canopy class. The only people who should be _required_ to are the ones at very high risk for injury or death i.e. the people with very low jump numbers loading their canopies heavily.

It's like a PRO rating. Everyone should be able to land their canopies accurately. The only people forced to demonstrate it are the ones who are at a very high risk if they can't i.e. the people landing in the middle of crowds at a demo. Just because no one will make you land in a 10 meter circle doesn't mean that working on accuracy isn't a good idea.

>How did my taking a class expose me to any more risk than throwing
>myself at the ground repeatedly?

In your case it does not. However, you chose (wisely, I think) a canopy where a landing mistake leads to your falling down, not to your near-certain injury or death. Given that, it should be your choice as to how you learn to fly your canopy. You are in a position where you _can_ learn from your mistakes. You chose to take a canopy class, and that's great - I encourage everyone to do that. I just don't think that everyone should be required to do that, unless they want to take unusual risks by jumping a small canopy early in their jumping careers.

However, let's take the case of a class set up to allow people to jump 1.5 to 1 canopies, one intended to help someone with 35 jumps to safely jump a Stiletto 120. The only way to see if someone can safely land a Stiletto loaded at 1.5 to 1 is to have them _jump_ that Stiletto loaded at 1.5 to 1, or jump a progression of canopies up to that loading. That's a risk that some people may choose not to take, and so should not be required to take it.

One might respond "But that's different! I just wanted to learn how to land my big Triathalon. I wouldn't jump that 1.5 to 1 Stiletto." And I agree. Buit if we're talking about a canopy control class that's required before people can jump tiny canopies safely, one that we hope will reduce fatalities under them, it must neccessarily be different than one intended to help jumpers safely land larger canopies.

[billvon 2,400]

>Its not like wingloading that could depend on your skill.

Uh, yes it is. Some of us open below 500 feet on purpose, and we make damn sure our equipment can handle it. If you were as careful packing your main as I am packing my BASE main then low openings would be quite doable.

Instead, people pack very quickly, use mains that spin up because they're more fun (even if they're less reliable) and don't worry as much about deployment position. As a result, pulling at 800 feet is a lot more dangerous.

>If you deploy a 1000 feet then get line twists on a high
>performance canopy you will die or serious injure yourself.

Are you forced to jump a HP canopy? Or did you make the decision to jump a less-reliable but more fun main? One of the many skills you need in BASE, or to open low in skydiving, is the wisdom to choose good gear, gear that will keep you alive under the conditions you expect to experience. Just like landing a HP canopy.

[Michele 1]

Quote

The only people who should be _required_ to are the ones at very high risk for injury or death i.e. the people with very low jump numbers loading their canopies heavily.

I would be very interested to see any sort of statistical assessment of injuries with jumpers under 100 jumps...IIRC, 1/2 of "my group" (the 4 who went through AFF at the same time and same place as I did) who did not injure themselves significantly (in one situation badly - and he will not walk without a limp) in the first 50-75 jumps. And I was really at risk of being the 3rd...that's a pretty high percentage, don't you think? 50%? So I would be curious to see statistical data to see if I am in the outlier group or part of the majority...

It would seem to me that people don't actually understand the risks - there is a lot of lip service; "Yes, I understand, this will kill me"..."yes, I understand, it's too small for me"..."yes, I understand how to dig myself out of the corner", but honestly, there isn't an understanding on how to fly the canopy. Look at the discussions about keeping a canopy pressurized in turbulence - there isn't a consensus. And those who do talk intelligently about it, and debate the issues, have hundreds if not thousands of jumps...groundspeed v. airspeed, for example, and many others.

No, you don't have to understand how the engine works to drive a car...but you do need to understand simple things like braking, opening the door, where the keyhole is, the rules of the road, which pedal does what. Same thing with canopy flight. There is a basic understanding of why and how things work which should be taught....damn it!...and are not taught. For some people, it's intuitive. For more, it is not.

Quote

However, you chose (wisely, I think) a canopy where a landing mistake leads to your falling down, not to your near-certain injury or death

Why do you think I chose that particular canopy and not something else? I am not smarter than average, nor wiser. I am not unique (as much as I'd like to think I am). So why did I chose that one, Bill?

Quote

I just don't think that everyone should be required to do that, unless they want to take unusual risks by jumping a small canopy early in their jumping careers.

O.K., here's an example. Someone with 1500 jumps at 1:1 on a spectre decides they have enough experience, enough understanding of the canopy, and enough understanding of conditions to radically switch to a HP, fully elliptical loaded at 2:1. Should he take the class?

Quote

That's a risk that some people may choose not to take, and so should not be required to take it.

I would not take it. And I doubt that many instructors would teach it. Fortunately, your understanding of what is taught to the 35 jump number person is wrong. How can I say this....

Canopy control classes are not necessarily about HP landings..

I know today exactly the same amount about swooping and flying a small canopy as I did at jump number 39...canopy classes are not necessarily about swooping.

Quote

Buit if we're talking about a canopy control class that's required before people can jump tiny canopies safely, one that we hope will reduce fatalities under them, it must neccessarily be different than one intended to help jumpers safely land larger canopies.

You're talking about that, Bill. I am not. I advocate a mandatory class before getting your A - which would teach basics. Pure and simple. Others advocate a testing system which will make you demonstrate a certain degree of competence. I don't know enough yet about that aspect of it to comment intelligently.

ANd I have to get to the office right now...sorry...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

Quote

You know this minimum pull altitude example is getting a bit old. As far as I am concerned the minimum pull altitude is too low as it is. I rarely pull under 3,000. In the past year I have only pulled at 2500 when I have been forced to because its what the old-timer RW guys want to do.

This is one point where I totally agree with Bruno. I cannot remember the last time I pulled below three grand. Those of us under very-high performance mains have raised our minimum pull altitude over the last few years to deal with our very "different" openings and to make time to sort out our sliders, etc, and to map a route through the normal high traffic. Hell, I dump as soon as my skydive is over and I am clear of my co-jumpers and know I am low enough that those behind me aren't likely to fall past me. Dumping under a crossbrace at two grand is incredibly nutty. That said, if I am in a bigger skydive where I "must" dump lower because it's where my wave of the skydive is mandated to open, then I will put on a rig with a larger, easier to manage main.

Chuck

[billvon 2,400]

>Why do you think I chose that particular canopy and not something
> else? I am not smarter than average, nor wiser. I am not unique
>(as much as I'd like to think I am). So why did I chose that one, Bill?

I dunno. Why?

>Someone with 1500 jumps at 1:1 on a spectre decides they have
> enough experience, enough understanding of the canopy, and
> enough understanding of conditions to radically switch to a HP, fully
> elliptical loaded at 2:1. Should he take the class?

Yes, he should. I don't think, for him, it should be mandatory.

>Canopy control classes are not necessarily about HP landings..

Didn't say that they were. I'm not talking about a class that gives you enough information to safely land a 1:1 Spectre, I'm talking about a class that essentially 'clears' people with very low experience to land much higher loadings. Not all canopy control classes are the same, just as all RW training camps are not the same. Some are big way, some are 4-way etc.

>You're talking about that, Bill. I am not.

Yeah; that's what the thread is about - restrictions placed on low time jumpers to help prevent their untimely demise due to jumping canopies they can not yet control well. Ron's original proposal was a BSR that restricted jumpers to certain loadings based on their experience. I proposed a canopy control class that would let you 'opt out' of those rules by learning to fly (and then demonstrating that skill) on a highly loaded canopy. Since the purpose of the class would be to get you the training needed to safely land that sort of canopy (i.e. to 'opt out' of the restrictions) it would neccessarily be about landing heavily loaded canopies. Not everyone would choose to take such a class.

>I advocate a mandatory class before getting your A - which would
>teach basics. Pure and simple.

I think we're halfway there already with the ISP. It contains a decent amount of canopy training, and if an instructor takes it seriously (i.e. watches you do the maneuvers and watches you land) then you can get a lot of that with what we have now. The problem is - how do you get DZ's to do that?

[billvon 2,400]

>This is one point where I totally agree with Bruno. I cannot
>remember the last time I pulled below three grand.

I agree too. I guess the analogy would be - what do you do with someone who regularly opens their crossbraced canopy at 1200 feet? If they explain that they can handle it, they're head up, is that sufficient explanation? Do you chalk it up to "well, they'll learn" - or do you use a BSR to keep them from essentially making a huge mistake that could easily injure or kill them?

[Michele 1]

Quote

I think we're halfway there already with the ISP. It contains a decent amount of canopy training, and if an instructor takes it seriously (i.e. watches you do the maneuvers and watches you land) then you can get a lot of that with what we have now. The problem is - how do you get DZ's to do that?

Agreed. And exactly my question.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Zenister 0]

Quote

I advocate a mandatory class before getting your A - which would teach basics. Pure and simple.

this is exactly what i think SHOULD be done.. at Eloy I got a very good over veiw of the 'basics' through out AFF, and then went and asked for more from some of the local canopy experts.

a solid foundation allows someone to improve much more quickly than anyone trying to "figure it out alone".

when someone wants to learn to freefly what does everyone say? well everyone i've heard "Get a few coach jumps so you dont learn bad habits you'll have to fix later on."

obviously this is recommendation not a requirement, just as (IMO) canopy control classes should be after your a licensed jumper. Additional training is simply the smart thing to do, unfortunately everyone isnt smart, nor will they ever be..

if some one has been flailing on their head for 50 jumps and doesnt want to get any coaching i just wont jump with them..

i cant think of a single endeavor that you can learn well on your own without having a sound grasp of the fundamentals first.

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

[Steel 0]

About base jumping; Base jumping is like Bullriding you take you life and play Russian roulette with it everytime you do it. (not that I wouldn't bullride, you can see the attachment) But if you think that a careful packjob and stable body position will assure you reasonable safety then you need to talk to some base jumpers.(base jumpers with more than 100 jumps) I know a few of them and all of them have one thing in common, shit has gone wrong at one point or another. 180 degree openings have put them into walls or towers. Longer than expected snivels have resulted in broken ankles or legs and we all know the incidents get only more serious. As I have always said I believe in personal freedom above all else but if you are going to ban something in skydiving then I think base jumping should be first on the list, as it is the most dangerous with the least to gain.

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.

[Zenister 0]

BASE jumping is not skydiving.

its not regulated by anything other than other jumpers & manufacturers and even if there were laws specifically against it people would still be doing it..(and are off things the law doesnt like)

its one to the very attractive things about it, and i think one of the places where the real mavericks went when skydiving became more about 'safety' and less about 'freedom' & self determination

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

[billvon 2,400]

> . . .but if you are going to ban something in skydiving then I think
> base jumping should be first on the list, as it is the most dangerous
> with the least to gain.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't think USPA should get involved with BASE jumping at all, nor do I think that USPA should start advocating single-parachute systems for skydiving. I agree that it's too dangerous (and too fraught with other legal issues) to bring into skydiving.

At the same time, USPA isn't all there is to aerial sports. USPA doesn't regulate paragliding, or BASE jumping, or even military jumping. All it does is regulate (loosely) civilian sport jumping. And since that what it does, large numbers of people dying under small main canopies _is_ an issue it should take on. And if there were a new BSR regulating small canopy sizes or requiring more training, heck, jumpers could go to Lodi and jump there. It wouldn't solve the problem, but as USPA is pretty big, it would go a long way towards solving it.

[Ron 7]

Quote

You know this minimum pull altitude example is getting a bit old. As far as I am concerned the minimum pull
altitude is too low as it is. I rarely pull under 3,000.

Well my min pull altitude example is very relevent...

You see many years ago there were a bunch of jumpers that used to hum the hell out of it...They all claimed that it was their right to do it, and that they knew the risks. To make them pull high was to limit their freedom...It's their right to pull low if they wish...they knew what they were doing...Bla,Bla,Bla.

Problem was they were bouncing...And they were bouncing at an alarming rate. Someone said "Hey! people are getting killed because they are pulling low. Something should be done!".

So, people tried to educate them...But the low pullers said THEY were smarter, better packers, faster with the emergency procedures than the ones that bounced.

People still bounced from pulling low. Finally the PCA (I think, it might have been the USPA) said enough was enough. And the minumum pull altitudes were put in....Different hights for different skill level...Which oddly enough were based on jump numbers.

The freedom of low pull crowd..fought like hell. Claimed it was against the personal fredom of the sport..ect.

Now people like you are saying that they are to low....

Funny thing is 20 years ago you would be one of the ones pulling low.

Quote

Its not like wingloading that could depend on your skill. Its just plain and simple we all get line twists from
time to time. (no matter how good you pack or your body position is) If you deploy a 1000 feet then get line
twists on a high performance canopy you will die or serious injure yourself. So the comparison does not
follow. Its just not the same.

I don't know, I bet I could get a Raven and pack it to open quick. I bet I could pull at 1200 all day, and I bet I could handle MOST of the mals I would get. See, I said MOST...I am not perfect..No one is including those that load pocket sized canopies.

Now do you see how it is the same?

Same argument, different times, and over something else. But the same argument.

The argument is over a problem that did back then/is now killing people at an alarming rate. The ones that see the problem and are doing things about it, and the ones that don't see the problem, or don't agree with the proposed solution.

Reasons are limit of personal freedom. Not letting people do what they want Vs guiding people to make smart choices through education, regulation, or both.

I bet guys like me, and you argued like this over a beer 20 years ago.

Ron

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

[markbaur 0]

Quote

You see many years ago there were a bunch of jumpers that used to hum the hell out of it...They all claimed that it was their right to do it, and that they knew the risks. To make them pull high was to limit their freedom...It's their right to pull low if they wish...they knew what they were doing...Bla,Bla,Bla.

Problem was they were bouncing...And they were bouncing at an alarming rate. Someone said "Hey! people are getting killed because they are pulling low. Something should be done!".

So, people tried to educate them...But the low pullers said THEY were smarter, better packers, faster with the emergency procedures than the ones that bounced.

People still bounced from pulling low. Finally the PCA (I think, it might have been the USPA) said enough was enough. And the minumum pull altitudes were put in....Different hights for different skill level...Which oddly enough were based on jump numbers.

The freedom of low pull crowd..fought like hell. Claimed it was against the personal fredom of the sport..ect.

This is the first time (oops!) I've heard this. Please cite your reference.

Mark

[livendive 8]

Quote

You could ask why do we have min pull altitudes?

Honest question here. How long have minimum pull altitudes been in the BSRs and were they really the fix for low pulls? Or was it something else that reduced our low pull fatality stats?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)