Recommended Posts
Hooknswoop 19
QuoteI don't see it as simply regulation. I see it as a way to give our governing body another job to do without getting the true support of all its members
What would the new job be? Add a paragraph to the SIM's?
QuoteI see the potential for added costs to potential students in the form of extra classes making it prohibitive for some to finish training, I hear we are hurting for new members as it is.
Ron's (and my) proposals don't affect the cost of the "A" license one cent. Ron's proposal doesn't have any mandatory canopy courses in it, costing the jumper more money. The class is an option if they wish to exceed the wingloading maximum for their number of jumps.
QuoteOr other costs put on dz operators or schools if they have to host more mandatory schooling or policeing.
The DZ would/could make money off the canopy courses. The S & TA position is not a paid position. Any 'policing' they do is free of cost to either USPA or the DZ.
QuoteThese costs will be absorbed by the fun jumpers and new students probably not the tandems.
What costs? If anything the DZ will make more money from their cut of any canopy courses.
QuoteHere we go tandem mills bye, bye fun jumpers and occasional deathwish in training jumper.
You sound equally disappointed about the perceived demise fun-jumper oriented DZ's as you are about students with a 'death wish'.
QuoteMaybe your are ready to pay more for jumps to cover any accrued costs passed on to the operation and then you. I am not. I am prepared to listen to any advice about my skydiving that I can get and seek it out regularly. Shared knowledge
What costs? It is great you are still willing to learn, keep it up.
QuoteIts been said you, we ,us are the uspa. We need to make the change. Help train others about canopy flight. Those that feel so positively about the canopy dilemma should take a very aggressive role in being a positive role models for others,
I teach canopy skills and I am sure Ron does also. Obviously a few people (there are others) are not preventing the increase in landing incidents (injuries and fatalities) with jumpers in over their heads with their current canopy. Is flying a cross-braced canopy setting a bad example?
QuoteDo I "have" to fly a crossbraced? Can I get on a fun-safe- perky spectre at reasonable wing loading and show its value until someone has accrued the proper skills? Make that look good.
I have two canopies, a Safire 189 and a VX-60. I can land both of them, but the VX is more spectacular. There is no way to make landing my Safire look better than my VX to spectators, not without injury anyway.
QuoteDon't get me wrong I'm not tellin anyone what to fly. Just do our parts for change before we ask someone else to and then cry when we get the bill for it.
The current system of peer pressure and advice with the occasional grounding or lecture isn't working. Again, I ask, what cost (what bill)?
Hook
rhino 0
QuoteSorta 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.
Fair enough... But...
I've seen more jumpers get injured because they simply don't know how to flare than I have jumpers that swoop. Granted, swoop injuries tend to be more serious.
I've seen a few swoop accidents. I've seen ten times as many accidents and injuries at 1:1 than at higher loadings. Call me crazy
Kind of like comparing the European Autobahn to the highway system here in the US. More die on the highway in the US. The people driving 150 miles an hour on a daily basis on the Autobahn tend to know how to drive. When they fuck up they are driving faster so naturally their accidents are worse.
lol
Rhino
Ron 7
QuoteWhy grandfather luck? If a student made a successful landing in unexpected 20 mph winds, would you waiver
the winds to 20 mph for his subsequent jumps?
Were any of the injuries/fatalities on the first jump at that WL? Why not protect current as well as future
jumpers, by requiring them all to use safer equipment?
Simple, because it would be unfair to tell someone that they can't jump the canopy that they just bought, and that they have to buy another. I could not have bought another new canopy back when I started to skydive. So while it does not make them safer, it is only fair to grandfather them in.
And the equipment is great. The problem is the jumpers don't have the correct skills to match the equipment.
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
kallend 1,625
Quote
Besides we are only discussing the fix...We know the problem.
Ron
I disagree. We know some people are dying under canopies and that is certainly a problem, but there has been no serious (i.e. scientific protocol) study done to determine exactly what the scope of the problem is, what level of training is needed to avoid it (if any), what WL limits will prevent it at various levels of experience, what other rules need to be in place.... without triggering "the law of unintended consequences".
Almost all my friends and family think skydiving of any nature is an unacceptable risk. I choose to accept the risk. Some people accept the risk of jumping under tiny canopies. Who am I to criticize?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 7
expand on this...
What "unintended consequences" do you see?
John, look at last years incident reports.
Tell me what you see.
Ron
What "unintended consequences" do you see?
John, look at last years incident reports.
Tell me what you see.
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
skybytch 259
QuoteI hear we are hurting for new members as it is.
So why not do something that might help us retain the ones we have? Providing mandatory training and guidance on canopy control and canopy choice could very well keep jumpers in the sport. Tell them to buy something conservative, then teach them to fly it... they're less likely to be injured under it (thus less likely to quit the sport and sell their gear) and they're less likely to develop gear fear (being scared of your canopy) and therefore less likely to find other things to do on the weekends, quit the sport and sell their gear.
QuoteThose that feel so positively about the canopy dilemma should take a very aggressive role in being a positive role models for others
Can I get on a fun-safe- perky spectre at reasonable wing loading and show its value until someone has accrued the proper skills? Make that look good.
Umm.... near as I can tell I've been trying to do just that for several years now... Guess I don't make it look good enough.
Steel 0
Just for the sake of accuracy, I will make some corrections. There is no European Auto Bahn. That is just Germany. Bahn Is road in German. Next this myth that there is no speed limit in Germany is exactly that, a myth. Anywhere near a city in the German highways has a speed limit of 130 kilometers per hour or slower. It is true that in many open areas on the German highways you are aloud to go as fast as you want. But everytime they have less and less of those parts and its only in Germany anyway. As for going 150 (I assume you mean miles) well that does not happen very often, certainly not on a daily basis as most cars don't even go that fast. Have you ever been in a car going over 130? I have and let me tell you the road looks wierd as hell as white lines are passing really fast and everything is happening really fast. It takes a very high level concentration to do this even semi-safely and for that reason nobody is going to go cruising for a long trip at a speed like that. Cars can't tolerate that speed for a long time. The tires would wear out radically fast, you would need oil changes three times as often and that is assuming you have one hell of a sportscar like a Ferrari testarosa or a Viper because if because you would burn out the engine on a BMW M3 if you kept it consistently at that speed and most people can't even afford a car that fast. If there are more accidents in the American highways its because there are more people driving. I am sure the accident rate in higher in Germany.
Don't get me wrong I hate speed limits. I would love for there to be no speed limits. I believe it should be people's choice if they want to go faster or not. I also believe I could drive faster safely than a lot of people slowly. But I am not going to deny statistics and there are countless studies in the U.S. proving that there are less accidents when they lower the speed limits from 65 to 55.
Don't get me wrong I hate speed limits. I would love for there to be no speed limits. I believe it should be people's choice if they want to go faster or not. I also believe I could drive faster safely than a lot of people slowly. But I am not going to deny statistics and there are countless studies in the U.S. proving that there are less accidents when they lower the speed limits from 65 to 55.
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.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.
kallend 1,625
Quoteexpand on this...
What "unintended consequences" do you see?
John, look at last years incident reports.
Tell me what you see.
Ron
Unintended consequences are things that proposers of rules do not forsee. Generally happens when rules are passed in a hurry without thinking them through or without adequate data. - example: 4th July Fireworks are much more expensive this year, and many communities have cancelled their displays, because the HSA has caused railroads to stop shipping fireworks. Not one member of Congress saw this as a consequence of HSA when he/she voted for the act. HSA was ill thought out as a knee-jerk response to 9/11. The silly regulation of model rocket motors and severe shortage of dynamite in the coal mining and quarrying industries are other unintended consequences of HSA.
I think your proposal, while well intentioned, is not based on a statistically valid analysis of data. What data do you have to support a specific WL at 200 jumps or 400 jumps? Your proposed rules are arbitrary, and arbitrary rules always have unintended consequences that, by definition, no-one forsees (so don't ask what I forsee).
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 7
QuoteI think your proposal, while well intentioned, is not based on a statistically valid analysis of data.
Nope it was created by a very well known canopy pilot, and bought into by several more.
The problem is clear. People without the correct knowledge, or experence getting high performance equipment.
The solution is much harder.
Education would be the best answer...However the scope of creating a good conclusive program, and the difficulties of putting it inplace nationwide. Is so large that I am not sure it can be done.
Other countries are doing regulation...It can work, and would be easy to implement. It can have an "opt out" for those that show the needed skill sets.
With added training, both in the FJC, and after...In a few years with the added training programs. The regulation might need to be altered, or even done away with (Think about not allowing students on squares, or students must jump spring loaded pilot chutes. Both BSR's that are gone.)
QuoteYour proposed rules are arbitrary, and
arbitrary rules always have unintended consequences that, by definition, no-one forsees
And what is the cost of doing nothing?
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Michele 1
Quote
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.
Michele, you are supposed to get that training in your AFF / SL / IAD student training. If you don't then ask for your money back because they screwed you. (Not really you Michele. Just anyone who doesn't get that training in their course.) I think this is the biggest failing of the current instructional program as a whole in the US.
So I should traipse over to the school where I took AFF, tell them they did it wrong, and demand a refund? I can just imagine the looks I'd get with that.
My point was not that I *should* have gotten better training, my point is that the canopy classes offered where I am are NOT about HP landings exclusively. They didn't teach me to come swooping through the flags, hi-5ing while I'm passing someone as I've planed out 3 inches off the ground.
There is a misconception rampant in most circles that canopy classes won't teach new jumpers; if they do teach new jumpers, what they are teaching is dangerous to new jumpers. most people think the classes are about getting swoop training...and while they do offer that, mostly they teach what perhaps I should've received earlier but didn't.
I am trying desperately to set an example. I talk to whomever will listen/read about my experiences, about my problems, and about finding the solution. I actively encourage canopy control class at ALL levels. Unfortunately, I am not most folks' "peer", and have no pressure value. Some folk have listened to me and my story...I know there are at least two other people who've taken or will shortly take a canopy control class because of things I've said and statements I've made. And hopefully that will snowball...more and more folks will forgo a day of "fun jumps" to learn about flying their canopy...simple stuff, easy stuff...vital stuff.
IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT POTENTIAL W/L RESTRICTIONS, YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
DZOs, S&T's, if you're reading this, do a free canopy day. Have a seminar. Get ahold of jumpers, and teach them something. I dare you. Shit, I doubledog dare you. Do a day of HnP's after a mini-groundschool. Do it. See what happens...who shows up, who cares enough about their own lives to learn a bit more about their canopies. Show me who cares about their jumpers enough to have this seminar.
Competent jumpers, here's your doubledog dare. Take the hand of several newbies and get them aside and teach them the basics. How to flat turn. How to determine flarepoint. What wingloading is and is not. Teach them what you know...YOU give up one day - just one - you can spare that, can't you??? - and help those you see at risk at your dz. Give them a hand. Share your knowledge. Turn it around...if you care, you do something.
Something has to be done. Take the initiative, and do something. Help someone. Give up one single day and focus on junior jumpers' canopy skills. One SINGLE day. Who's life can you change? Find out...
(rapidly jumping off my soapbox...sorry...)
(BTW, Diverdriver, this is not directed at you...really. I promise...)
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I've seen a few swoop accidents. I've seen ten times as many
>accidents and injuries at 1:1 than at higher loadings. Call me crazy . .
Not at all; I've seen the same thing. But accidents at 1:1 leave you with a broken leg and a good story. A swoop accident at 2:1 is much more likely to leave you dead. The jumper under the 1:1 can learn from his mistake; the dead swooper can't.
When it comes to regulation, I don't see a need to pass rules that keep people from injuring themselves, but I do see a need to pass rules that keep people alive. A death hurts us far, far more than an injury does.
>accidents and injuries at 1:1 than at higher loadings. Call me crazy . .
Not at all; I've seen the same thing. But accidents at 1:1 leave you with a broken leg and a good story. A swoop accident at 2:1 is much more likely to leave you dead. The jumper under the 1:1 can learn from his mistake; the dead swooper can't.
When it comes to regulation, I don't see a need to pass rules that keep people from injuring themselves, but I do see a need to pass rules that keep people alive. A death hurts us far, far more than an injury does.
billvon 2,400
>I hear we are hurting for new members as it is.
Where did you hear that? What are you, personally, unable to do now because there are only 34,000 USPA members that you'd be able to do with 500,000 members?
Skydiving is not for everyone, and I have zero desire to try to push our sport on people who are undecided about it.
>These costs will be absorbed by the fun jumpers and new students
>probably not the tandems.
Quite true, but it would be cheaper than what we're paying now. Molly's accident cost her well over $100,000, of which she had to pay about $20,000. A few coached jumps at $40 a piece would have saved her a lot of money.
>Maybe your are ready to pay more for jumps to cover any
>accrued costs passed on to the operation and then you. I am not.
I suspect you would be willing to pay more during your student progression if it saved the life of another skydiver, although you might not realize it until you had 100 jumps or so. I know I would.
Where did you hear that? What are you, personally, unable to do now because there are only 34,000 USPA members that you'd be able to do with 500,000 members?
Skydiving is not for everyone, and I have zero desire to try to push our sport on people who are undecided about it.
>These costs will be absorbed by the fun jumpers and new students
>probably not the tandems.
Quite true, but it would be cheaper than what we're paying now. Molly's accident cost her well over $100,000, of which she had to pay about $20,000. A few coached jumps at $40 a piece would have saved her a lot of money.
>Maybe your are ready to pay more for jumps to cover any
>accrued costs passed on to the operation and then you. I am not.
I suspect you would be willing to pay more during your student progression if it saved the life of another skydiver, although you might not realize it until you had 100 jumps or so. I know I would.
QuoteA few open questions:
What is the current system to prevent jumpers from flying canopys they can't handle?
Peer pressure, the threat of injury/death, self-imposed jump number limits by distributors, advice/restriction by S&TA's and DZO's.
QuoteIs the current system for preventing jumpers from flying canopys they can't handle insufficient?
This is a pretty subjective question, but I don't think it's insufficient overall, just inconsistent.
QuoteWhat should our 'goal' be?
Why does there have to be an "our" goal? How about *I* have two goals: a) to have as much fun as I can without injuring or killing myself and b) to encourage my students and the jumpers around me to adopt and pursue a similar goal.
QuoteHow many injuries under good canopys per 1000 jumps is acceptable?
Tough question to answer in an individualistic approach. I would consider a minor injury (e.g. bruises, sprained ankle, etc) event acceptable every few hundred jumps for myself but not any major injuries. I can't really say how many are acceptable for others.
QuoteHow many fatalities under good canopies per 1000 jumps is acceptable?
For me, zero. I consider my death an unacceptable outcome. For others? Apparently at least as many as actually die this way.
QuoteHow would you (a hypothetical question), as an Instructor (you may be an Instructor, we haven’t gotten to the hypothetical part yet), take someone from 0 skydives to 1000, downsizing and progressing as a canopy pilot, with the eventual goal of high performance landings, with the goal of zero injuries along the way? Assume you can spend as much time as necessary in the classroom and jump with them as much as you need to reach this goal and your ‘student’ can afford to downsize/side step canopys as you see fit.
I don't really have the expertise to answer this question. I know how I did it, and I also know I had a couple minor injuries along the way (1 sprained ankle and 1 bruised tailbone as a student, 1 dislocation of my shoulder (at least partially due to pre-existing instability) while swooping a 2.3:1 extreme at around 850 jumps). I made a couple stupid jumps along the way (2.1:1 Nitro at 180 jumps) and wouldn't recommend that others follow the path I took. I guess I probably would suggest logical progression of wingloading and some coaching by better canopy pilots than I am. I wouldn't demand that they follow any particular path but would point out when I thought they were straying too far from my idea of "safety."
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
billvon 2,400
>For me, zero. I consider my death an unacceptable outcome. For
>others? Apparently at least as many as actually die this way.
So you believe that there are many people out there (including those who have died) who are OK with dying?
Also, I'm not sure I believe you when you say that you consider your death unacceptable. As skydiving carries with it a finite chance of death, a chance that's much greater than most other sports, you must accept that you have a (small) chance of dying on every jump.
>others? Apparently at least as many as actually die this way.
So you believe that there are many people out there (including those who have died) who are OK with dying?
Also, I'm not sure I believe you when you say that you consider your death unacceptable. As skydiving carries with it a finite chance of death, a chance that's much greater than most other sports, you must accept that you have a (small) chance of dying on every jump.
You sound equally disappointed about the perceived demise fun-jumper oriented DZ's as you are about students with a 'death wish'.
No Derek I am extremely disappointed ( and not just in skydiving ) when we feel we need to enact more rules, more procedure, more costs to a system that is working fine but is being ignored, bypassed or violated by a handful that know they are doing it.
I'm sorry but my FJC and AFF training was good and proper, I got dollar for dollar on its value. So did anyone who went through about the time I did. I'm not saying everybody does everywhere all the time. It was what we needed to be safe under lightly loaded mains in light and variable winds with a clear head and a responsable attitude. The Mantra "no low turns-no low turns" still rings in my head. I learned braked turns and flat turns and what to do if someone cuts me off. What they did not teach me to do was to be "spectacular" like the guys from team extreme. I was told if I tried to emulate them without putting in the years and required effort to gain their experience I was going to die! They told me and I believe this.
On a personal level I am so tired of people trying to protect everybody from their guns, getting out in the desert and hurting ecosystem or their own system, perceived threat from weapons of mass destruction or creating work safety protocals that are oppresive and counter productive to the work to be done. Finacial constraints on businesses to protect it from practices that were already illegal. That were never needed because we have a system already that was good enough and it was violated by people who know better were trained better and made a personal choice to break the law or do otherwise. I believe we should punish the offenders ( in the world ) not the entire population. Unfurtunatly in skydiving this means self inflicted breakage.
And be advised I'm fully aware I'm in your target demographic of jump numbers to wingloading danger zone. I sought the advice of very experienced people that I respected about my decision and it is up for constant review and feedback. I even listen to people who I don't respect , who I feel don't have a grip on their own canopy capabilities and who offer advise bundled with personal prejudice. And severe lack of skills on this subject regardless of other lofty acomplishments in their skydiving careers.
I'm not aggressive and try to make very responsable decisions about what I do and how it effects my loved ones, the sport and my hiney. But I would feel exactly the same on this issue if I were at a much more conservative loading. I do have a concern that a minimum jump-vs- wingload progression may just move the injuries up the scale to people with more jump numbers if they don't also seek training or additional advise. You may say that they will have experience, but that highly loaded main will be new to them. My rant is over and I apologise to anyone who may feel that I have shared a stern word over this subject that I feel pretty passionate about.
[I have two canopies, a Safire 189 and a VX-60. I can land both of them, but the VX is more spectacular. There is no way to make landing my Safire look better than my VX to spectators, not without injury anyway.
[The current system of peer pressure and advice with the occasional grounding or lecture isn't working. Again, I ask, what cost (what bill)?
Hook
No Derek I am extremely disappointed ( and not just in skydiving ) when we feel we need to enact more rules, more procedure, more costs to a system that is working fine but is being ignored, bypassed or violated by a handful that know they are doing it.
I'm sorry but my FJC and AFF training was good and proper, I got dollar for dollar on its value. So did anyone who went through about the time I did. I'm not saying everybody does everywhere all the time. It was what we needed to be safe under lightly loaded mains in light and variable winds with a clear head and a responsable attitude. The Mantra "no low turns-no low turns" still rings in my head. I learned braked turns and flat turns and what to do if someone cuts me off. What they did not teach me to do was to be "spectacular" like the guys from team extreme. I was told if I tried to emulate them without putting in the years and required effort to gain their experience I was going to die! They told me and I believe this.
On a personal level I am so tired of people trying to protect everybody from their guns, getting out in the desert and hurting ecosystem or their own system, perceived threat from weapons of mass destruction or creating work safety protocals that are oppresive and counter productive to the work to be done. Finacial constraints on businesses to protect it from practices that were already illegal. That were never needed because we have a system already that was good enough and it was violated by people who know better were trained better and made a personal choice to break the law or do otherwise. I believe we should punish the offenders ( in the world ) not the entire population. Unfurtunatly in skydiving this means self inflicted breakage.
And be advised I'm fully aware I'm in your target demographic of jump numbers to wingloading danger zone. I sought the advice of very experienced people that I respected about my decision and it is up for constant review and feedback. I even listen to people who I don't respect , who I feel don't have a grip on their own canopy capabilities and who offer advise bundled with personal prejudice. And severe lack of skills on this subject regardless of other lofty acomplishments in their skydiving careers.
I'm not aggressive and try to make very responsable decisions about what I do and how it effects my loved ones, the sport and my hiney. But I would feel exactly the same on this issue if I were at a much more conservative loading. I do have a concern that a minimum jump-vs- wingload progression may just move the injuries up the scale to people with more jump numbers if they don't also seek training or additional advise. You may say that they will have experience, but that highly loaded main will be new to them. My rant is over and I apologise to anyone who may feel that I have shared a stern word over this subject that I feel pretty passionate about.
[I have two canopies, a Safire 189 and a VX-60. I can land both of them, but the VX is more spectacular. There is no way to make landing my Safire look better than my VX to spectators, not without injury anyway.
[The current system of peer pressure and advice with the occasional grounding or lecture isn't working. Again, I ask, what cost (what bill)?
Hook
Hooknswoop 19
QuoteNo Derek I am extremely disappointed ( and not just in skydiving ) when we feel we need to enact more rules, more procedure, more costs to a system that is working fine but is being ignored, bypassed or violated by a handful that know they are doing it.
What costs?
The system is not working fine, in my opinion, and others. How can you violate canopy regulation, when there is no formal system in place? The number of injuries is too high.
QuoteI'm sorry but my FJC and AFF training was good and proper, I got dollar for dollar on its value. So did anyone who went through about the time I did. I'm not saying everybody does everywhere all the time. It was what we needed to be safe under lightly loaded mains in light and variable winds with a clear head and a responsable attitude. The Mantra "no low turns-no low turns" still rings in my head. I learned braked turns and flat turns and what to do if someone cuts me off. What they did not teach me to do was to be "spectacular" like the guys from team extreme. I was told if I tried to emulate them without putting in the years and required effort to gain their experience I was going to die! They told me and I believe this.
On a personal level I am so tired of people trying to protect everybody from their guns, getting out in the desert and hurting ecosystem or their own system, perceived threat from weapons of mass destruction or creating work safety protocals that are oppresive and counter productive to the work to be done. Finacial constraints on businesses to protect it from practices that were already illegal. That were never needed because we have a system already that was good enough and it was violated by people who know better were trained better and made a personal choice to break the law or do otherwise. I believe we should punish the offenders ( in the world ) not the entire population. Unfurtunatly in skydiving this means self inflicted breakage.
I never qusetioned your training, nor your ability. I question the number of people being injured under fully functional canopies. The problem is getting worse not better. I dislike the idea of regulation keeping people safe. I prefer the idea of education keeping people safe. Unfortunately that isn't working.
QuoteAnd be advised I'm fully aware I'm in your target demographic of jump numbers to wingloading danger zone. I sought the advice of very experienced people that I respected about my decision and it is up for constant review and feedback. I even listen to people who I don't respect , who I feel don't have a grip on their own canopy capabilities and who offer advise bundled with personal prejudice. And severe lack of skills on this subject regardless of other lofty acomplishments in their skydiving careers.
I'm not aggressive and try to make very responsable decisions about what I do and how it effects my loved ones, the sport and my hiney. But I would feel exactly the same on this issue if I were at a much more conservative loading.
I didn't realize you were in the demographics being targeted. My proposal offers an 'out' for people that desire to downsize faster than normal, with more training/education. Why is this so bad?
Do you not agree that the current system of peer pressure, DZO's and S & TA's is not working?
Do you feel that the current, rising, level of injuries/fatalities is acceptable?
Why, exactly, are you against the idea more canopy training at each license level and wingloading maximums, based on jump numbers, with the option to exceed these maximums on a case-by-case basis?
Are you against minumum pull altitudes based on jump numbers/license held?
Are you against reserve re-pack cycles?
Hook
I didn't realize you were in the demographics being targeted. My proposal offers an 'out' for people that desire to downsize faster than normal, with more training/education. Why is this so bad?
__________________________________________________
I was only saying that I act accordingly knowing I'm in the dangerzone, I don't feel targeted but feel I must act responsably given my choices. Glen
__________________________________________________
Do you not agree that the current system of peer pressure, DZO's and S & TA's is not working?
__________________________________________________
I can't speak for other DZs but I think there is a dual mesage being sent, something along the lines of do as I say not as I do. But in the end its up to each individual jumper to do the right thing. Glen
_________________________________________________
Do you feel that the current, rising, level of injuries/fatalities is acceptable?
_________________________________________________
I can't speak for events that I don't have a first hand knowledge of but from three events from harsh to benign. With three jumpers from the same school about the same time same instruction.
1) being a canopy collision at low altitude resulting in death. A recent downsize on a regular sport canopy was implicated as part of the reason,we will never know but a collision is a collision.
2) an honest to goodness low riser turn on a fairly loaded HP canopy with video resulting in broken bones and months of recovery.
3) a loss of alti awareness no flare water displacement landing under a moderately loaded HP canopy resulting in sore ribs.This jumper has known about water alti awareness for over 20 years of flying aircraft, it was covered in water training months prior, it was talked about the day before and moments before this jump it was fresh in his mind. I know this because it was me and until I experienced it I could not impress apon anyone this sensation. I appreciate this as a very valueable lesson learned the easy way.
In a stastistical forum its been said that a partial factor in each of these cases was downsizing too soon for similar jumpers with similar training backgrounds all with under 300 jumps experience. How many of the three of us would this addition to our BSRs have helped. What was the "attitude of the jumpers", All were pretty curent. Were there any other circumstances that played a much greater role than a too small canopy.
My question is Are we dying under small HP's or all kinds of canopys at all kinds of loadings?Glen
_________________________________________________
Why, exactly, are you against the idea more canopy training at each license level and wingloading maximums, based on jump numbers, with the option to exceed these maximums on a case-by-case basis?
_________________________________________________
Because I don't think its the sole reason for ALL these deaths or injuries unless you are only refering to guys trying to swoop and biting it. But I think we are talking about ALL canopy related events instead.Glen
__________________________________________________
Are you against minumum pull altitudes based on jump numbers/license held?
_________________________________________________
No and my personal choice is to pull high for FF and even higher for wingsuit. I don't think that the BSRs changed this. I think jumpers as a collective got smart about this. enforcement had little to do with it, not as much as equiptment changes and newer minds joining the sport and saying that its not for them. Glen
__________________________________________________
Are you against reserve re-pack cycles?
__________________________________________________
No not at all but going on the open advice I'm not opposed to the six month cycle. Here I'm with the flow. But I will tell you I'm way opposed to the you need 100 jumps before you freefly and 200 jumps before you go head down that some other organisations have. I was never opposed to 500 jumps prior to wingsuit flight but am personally glad that with instruction 200 is acceptable . Not everyone agrees here.
I had a discussion with a very experienced person with very many years in the sport about wing suits. And it was equated to snowboards on mostly skiers mountains. In the begining they were only seen as reckless and dangerous. Now its impossable not to crowd them because they have taken over and are now the majority, represent responsable people from all walks. Gone sking lately? Glen
__________________________________________________
I was only saying that I act accordingly knowing I'm in the dangerzone, I don't feel targeted but feel I must act responsably given my choices. Glen
__________________________________________________
Do you not agree that the current system of peer pressure, DZO's and S & TA's is not working?
__________________________________________________
I can't speak for other DZs but I think there is a dual mesage being sent, something along the lines of do as I say not as I do. But in the end its up to each individual jumper to do the right thing. Glen
_________________________________________________
Do you feel that the current, rising, level of injuries/fatalities is acceptable?
_________________________________________________
I can't speak for events that I don't have a first hand knowledge of but from three events from harsh to benign. With three jumpers from the same school about the same time same instruction.
1) being a canopy collision at low altitude resulting in death. A recent downsize on a regular sport canopy was implicated as part of the reason,we will never know but a collision is a collision.
2) an honest to goodness low riser turn on a fairly loaded HP canopy with video resulting in broken bones and months of recovery.
3) a loss of alti awareness no flare water displacement landing under a moderately loaded HP canopy resulting in sore ribs.This jumper has known about water alti awareness for over 20 years of flying aircraft, it was covered in water training months prior, it was talked about the day before and moments before this jump it was fresh in his mind. I know this because it was me and until I experienced it I could not impress apon anyone this sensation. I appreciate this as a very valueable lesson learned the easy way.
In a stastistical forum its been said that a partial factor in each of these cases was downsizing too soon for similar jumpers with similar training backgrounds all with under 300 jumps experience. How many of the three of us would this addition to our BSRs have helped. What was the "attitude of the jumpers", All were pretty curent. Were there any other circumstances that played a much greater role than a too small canopy.
My question is Are we dying under small HP's or all kinds of canopys at all kinds of loadings?Glen
_________________________________________________
Why, exactly, are you against the idea more canopy training at each license level and wingloading maximums, based on jump numbers, with the option to exceed these maximums on a case-by-case basis?
_________________________________________________
Because I don't think its the sole reason for ALL these deaths or injuries unless you are only refering to guys trying to swoop and biting it. But I think we are talking about ALL canopy related events instead.Glen
__________________________________________________
Are you against minumum pull altitudes based on jump numbers/license held?
_________________________________________________
No and my personal choice is to pull high for FF and even higher for wingsuit. I don't think that the BSRs changed this. I think jumpers as a collective got smart about this. enforcement had little to do with it, not as much as equiptment changes and newer minds joining the sport and saying that its not for them. Glen
__________________________________________________
Are you against reserve re-pack cycles?
__________________________________________________
No not at all but going on the open advice I'm not opposed to the six month cycle. Here I'm with the flow. But I will tell you I'm way opposed to the you need 100 jumps before you freefly and 200 jumps before you go head down that some other organisations have. I was never opposed to 500 jumps prior to wingsuit flight but am personally glad that with instruction 200 is acceptable . Not everyone agrees here.
I had a discussion with a very experienced person with very many years in the sport about wing suits. And it was equated to snowboards on mostly skiers mountains. In the begining they were only seen as reckless and dangerous. Now its impossable not to crowd them because they have taken over and are now the majority, represent responsable people from all walks. Gone sking lately? Glen
Hooknswoop 19
QuoteDo you not agree that the current system of peer pressure, DZO's and S & TA's is not working?
__________________________________________________
I can't speak for other DZs but I think there is a dual mesage being sent, something along the lines of do as I say not as I do. But in the end its up to each individual jumper to do the right thing. Glen
So do you think the current system is working?
Dual message? I don't understand. Do mean that because I fly a small canopy that i am being hypocritical by being for some sort of canopy regulations/education?
QuoteDo you feel that the current, rising, level of injuries/fatalities is acceptable?
QuoteMy question is Are we dying under small HP's or all kinds of canopys at all kinds of loadings?
The numbers seem to indicate that the it is the under 500 jumps, too aggressively downsizing is the greatest catagory of injuries/fatalities.
QuoteWhy, exactly, are you against the idea more canopy training at each license level and wingloading maximums, based on jump numbers, with the option to exceed these maximums on a case-by-case basis?
_________________________________________________
Because I don't think its the sole reason for ALL these deaths or injuries unless you are only refering to guys trying to swoop and biting it. But I think we are talking about ALL canopy related events instead
Canopy regulation, increased training and optional canopy coaching to exceed the wingloading limits will not prevent all landing incidents. It will take a chunk out of them though. No solution will stop all landing incidents. Minimum pull altitudes that are enforced can only stop people from bouncing that intentionally pull low. If they lose altitude awareness and go low, it won't stop them from bouncing.
QuoteNo and my personal choice is to pull high for FF and even higher for wingsuit. I don't think that the BSRs changed this. I think jumpers as a collective got smart about this. enforcement had little to do with it, not as much as equiptment changes and newer minds joining the sport and saying that its not for them.
The trend is not that newer jumpers are getting smarter about their canopy choices, the opposite is true. Sitting back and waiting for the trend to reverse doesn't seem like a good plan.
QuoteNo not at all but going on the open advice I'm not opposed to the six month cycle. Here I'm with the flow.
I am for a 6 month re-pack cycle until any component of the gear is 2 years old, then a 4 month re-pack cycle. We both agree that gear needs to be inspected periodically.
QuoteBut I will tell you I'm way opposed to the you need 100 jumps before you freefly and 200 jumps before you go head down that some other organisations have. I was never opposed to 500 jumps prior to wingsuit flight but am personally glad that with instruction 200 is acceptable . Not everyone agrees here.
This regulation is similar to what is being proposed. 500 jumps before flying a wingsuit, waiverable to 200 with instruction, that is very similar to what is being proposed. I haven't seen the free-flying restrictions before.
QuoteI had a discussion with a very experienced person with very many years in the sport about wing suits. And it was equated to snowboards on mostly skiers mountains. In the begining they were only seen as reckless and dangerous. Now its impossable not to crowd them because they have taken over and are now the majority, represent responsable people from all walks. Gone sking lately?
I am confused how this fits in, but I have have been snowboarding lately. It was a great time.
No solution is perfect or will stop all alnding incidents and fatalities. But what we have now is falling short. I have yet to hear a good argument against my wingloading regulation, waiverable if additional instruction is recieved (to a point), and more canopy skills requirements for each license proposal.
Hook
Michele, you are supposed to get that training in your AFF / SL / IAD student training. If you don't then ask for your money back because they screwed you. (Not really you Michele. Just anyone who doesn't get that training in their course.) I think this is the biggest failing of the current instructional program as a whole in the US. They are not teaching what is needed to survive on canopies after student status. People are spending money on canopy classes that teach what should have already been covered. People are getting ripped off these days. Not by the canopy schools. They do exactly what they advertise. I'm talking about any program that does not give the basics of canopy control. The only instruction that some seem to give is on the radio "Left, left, left, left, hands up let if fly........flair". Well that doesn't cut it anymore in the modern world. Hense, our current dillema. The problem becomes evident when people try to downsize and have no one on one instruction on how to do it. So, they go with what they think they know and what they think they've seen. Then they pound in or get killed.
So is the wingloading BSR a bandaid to a broken instructional program? I think that is part of it. But then again, I also have support for it. This debate will go on and on for a long time.
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites