rhino 0 #276 June 7, 2003 Quote3) 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, This is all fine and dandy.. The fact remains that you have to have your head on your shoulders swooping.. All 10 seconds or so of that swoop you have to be ZONED. All it takes is someone spacing out for a fraction of a second. Letting their guard down for a fraction of a second and you get hurt swooping. That challenge is something that I get pleasure from. I simply MUST maintain focus. I've seen people lose it for a fraction of a second and WHAM!! No flare? Or they damn near fly into someone. Sure I watched hook swoop and I WANTED TO BE LIKE HOOK. No doubt about it I wanted to learn to do that. Crowd pleasing is secondary. SPEED AND FLIGHT is primary. There was never any peer pressure. Sometimes I wonder what in the hell you people are talking about. I downsized because I LIKE THE PERFORMANCE difference!! Not because Derek flies a vx60 and I want to be like Derek. Ultimately IT IS THE PILOT'S RESPONSABILITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not the DZO's, not the USPA.. For Gods sake.. If someone gets under a smaller canopy they assume the risks involved. That is part of the enjoyment of the whole sport. If you want to be safe play golf. High performance canopy flight is growing. More people are skydiving. The law of averages is clear. Accidents happen. It is MY job to make sure I can fly my canopy. It is MY job to do my homework. It is MY job to insure others safety around me while flying my canopy. It is MY job to stay away from people I feel are unsafe under canopy.. It is MY job. No one elses... k, I'm done.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #277 June 7, 2003 [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? The fact remains ( my view is its not what I think but what do you think) you load at 3:1 , not for experiments with data loggers, not as a factory test pilot , but in your daily rig and at an impressive landing density altitude( at your home DZ ) that I will tell you I can't even breath at let alone really perform at. And everybody on a factory team doesn't load that high. And before we get off on the wrong foot I will never be part of a group that tells you how to load and fly( just asking you to review self and the message it sends out), at my current jump numbers or ever. I will never say we need to stop the needless base deaths that happen every year or the countless deaths of 19 year olds on ultra high performance motorcycles.......Ever. I will never judge the way you fly or your choices and if you are kicking ass i will ask you for help and advice to be sure. I will fight right along side of you if some organisation says " derek you just can't do what you've been doing anymore". And I'm not saying that you propose these particular changes into an ISP or BSR. No.... someone else might. QuoteDo you feel that the current, rising, level of injuries/fatalities is acceptable? If I have had the opportunity to know the true reason for the the deaths, whether it was equiptment related or lack of training related, attitude related, recreational drug use related. I could give you a gods honest answer. As I see it published in the uspa magazine ( only 3rd gen info ) I can't tell you. Half the time wing loading ( your champion issue BTW) isn't reported or for lack of a better word planform factor. Sometimes we get a hint of previous aggressive behavior but thats rare. If I was on the accident investigation board of the USPA, and I don't for one second believe one exists beyond local DZOs s&ta and an on scene rigger and coroners, I would have a hard time telling you what the primary preventable situation resulting in death was. If the person recently down sized or was on an HP before their time its easy to find the blame. Now if they try to be like their heroes and are swooping with low experience then its obvious. But I'm not convinced every example was a swoop gone bad. A young and very loved person perished at eloy recently nobody can tell us went wrong its kind of the nebulous factor no downsizing or hp canopy or that off brand canopy that collapses when you least expect it to blame. It just happened I'm sure if it was me or a select few of my peers it would be very easy to say it was those assholes, on their hps, before their time. quote unqoute. and you know it. ***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? Let me say now I'm not against training or coaching of any kind. If we could do this and keep the same old routine and expense I would be for it all the way. But if you are asking the governing body to place restrictions and conduct overt policing, when I believe they have their hands full at the federal and state level fighting and dealing with angry municipal airport bureaucracies and other monumental forces that don't care about what we do and could care less about our desire to hurl ourselves out of airplanes. And would be happy If we shut down, heck we are all crazy anyway right. Its my view thats their main job, we have to worry about us. There is a big difference in cultures in dropzones across the US. What is exceptable and what is not. Currently there is no solution as it is. _________________________________________________ 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. ________________________________________________- Really I haven't seen a good low alti toggle hook in over two years. You don't think there is a smartening of the masses? Only speaking for My DZ now, don't know what you are seeing out there. I haven't seen the free-flying restrictions before. __________________________________________________ Talk to the many overseas visitors and see what their organization mandates in terms of FF. Lets not get closer to frances style of controling Le swoop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #278 June 7, 2003 QuoteQuote3) 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, This is all fine and dandy.. The fact remains that you have to have your head on your shoulders swooping.. ________________________________________________ Awe and I was waiting for this, see you assume I was swooping, and I was not. Simply an accuracy type landing at the Apex of the pond. I could not convince my friends I wasn't swooping, I didn't even try to convince the DZO I wasn't swooping. I don't swoop on land and I didn't then. Had this been a reportable incident... it would have been a low time pilot on a heavily loaded HP... who should not have been swooping! Quite a bit different, in my view. It's easy to blame the plane form or the wing loading when it's even a small fraction of the cause. Outside of that jump, I have suffered more pain and strain in the packing area closing my rig, not a bruise - not a scratch, than in two hundred jumps on the same canopy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Designer 0 #279 June 7, 2003 Are wing loading police a good Idea?Humm,a tough question for sure.Busting people(low timers) is worse than busting an instructor,jumpmaster,experienced jumper for giving bad(misleading) info.Hey,most of us have taken chances with what we know,think we know and have experienced.Just suggesting that a person might not be ready for what they can afford can get you laughed at.I have real problems when it comes to this.You educate the best you can.If they don,t ask(it,s their funeral) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #280 June 7, 2003 QuoteAre wing loading police a good Idea? If you "anyone" wants to jump a higher loaded canopy that is your "their" choice. Anyone can give canopy advice. It is ultimately up to YOU to decide who you take it from. So.. If you are a jumper that hasn't done your homework and you get a highly loaded canopy you might want to choose WISELY who you get your schooling from. Don't pick the DZ disaster waiting to happen. Find someone that can fly. Swooping "or flying highly loaded canopies" is risk/reward thing. Most are willing to risk their ass for the reward of that type of flight. Like hook said.. Hope your bag of skill fills up before your bag of luck runs out. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 259 #281 July 7, 2010 It's been seven years since this thread was started. Still no BSR to help keep noobs off canopies they don't have the skill to handle. Lots more injured and dead guys who thought they had mad skillz though - and most of them could have avoided the pain if something had been done seven years ago, since most of them hadn't even seen a parachute back then. Will we ever learn? Nope. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 3 #282 July 7, 2010 At least you got the USPA to institute a Canopy Progression card (that almost no one uses). Get a group together and stand in front of the USPA BOD so they can look you in the eye when they say "no." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dragon2 0 #283 July 7, 2010 I must say, ever since we have our canopy rules (since 2003), incidents involving non-students and non-swoopers have seem to gone down markedly. Complaints are still there, from girls "stuck" on 150/135 sqft canopies for a while (which is a GOOD thing IMO, and a lot of the complaints seem to be from BFs and the like...), and the inevitable mad skillz guys. Some mad skillz guys try to jump a non-approved canopy anyway (i.e. 50 jumps 200+ lbs bodyweight jumper got himself a stiletto 170, 3 jumps until he got caught out) and they have the option to go jump in Belgium if they want where they can get away with their canopy choice more often, or they conform and jump a sabre2 150 until 400 jumps, big deal... Also the canopy market seems stabilised again now, that took a while. Some stuff is still very hard to sell here... Anyway, while of course you can still get hurt jumping a "sensible" canopy, incidents seem to have gone down here in the "intermediate" range, and I think also in the more advanced >700 jump range but don't have the statistics to prove that. ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stayhigh 2 #284 July 7, 2010 Grown ass man or woman should be able to determine what they want to fly. If they wanna hook in, it should be their choice. If you are so saftey conscious than you should never skydive. and honestly any type of speed induced landing could be your last one, even at 1.1 wingloading. so now what? do we limit what kind of turn they should do at certain jump number??? till 100 jump straight in 200 double front 300 45 degree double front 400 90 degree double front. and so forth??? and who makes that decision??? some old dude in USPA chair who can't even go across the pond, and thinking, hmmmmmmm, "I" had trouble doing this at this jump number so "THEY" shouldn't do that??? with so many regulation makes me wanna go base.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #285 July 7, 2010 QuoteIt's been seven years since this thread was started. Still no BSR to help keep noobs off canopies they don't have the skill to handle. . How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 259 #286 July 7, 2010 QuoteHow do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test? No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands. Which appear to be having the intended effect - QuoteI must say, ever since we have our canopy rules (since 2003), incidents involving non-students and non-swoopers have seem to gone down markedly. Is it perfect? No. Does it limit some jumpers "freedom"? Yes - until they get some experience under their belt, that is. Will it reduce injuries? Yes. Will it make it easier for a DZO/DZM/S&TA to tell someone they can't jump that canopy? Yes. Will it make it easier for gear dealers and private sellers to tell someone they can't buy that canopy? Yes. Will I have to check the manifest to see if "that guy" is on it before I get on that load? Probably not. Will it happen? No. Even if someone presents it to the BOD. For, as I was told in a PM, it's already been decreed high up in USPA that it will never happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DocPop 1 #287 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteIt's been seven years since this thread was started. Still no BSR to help keep noobs off canopies they don't have the skill to handle. . How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test? I think that would be an excellent idea. Some kind of checklist involving the kind of canopy drills taught on canopy courses could be required for B, C and D licenses. With the current USPA system it is quite possible to never have any canopy advice or coaching after the A-license card is completed."The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #288 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteHow do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test? No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands. Which appear to be having the intended effect - QuoteI must say, ever since we have our canopy rules (since 2003), incidents involving non-students and non-swoopers have seem to gone down markedly. Is it perfect? No. Does it limit some jumpers "freedom"? Yes - until they get some experience under their belt, that is. Will it reduce injuries? Yes. Will it make it easier for a DZO/DZM/S&TA to tell someone they can't jump that canopy? Yes. Will it make it easier for gear dealers and private sellers to tell someone they can't buy that canopy? Yes. Will I have to check the manifest to see if "that guy" is on it before I get on that load? Probably not. Will it happen? No. Even if someone presents it to the BOD. For, as I was told in a PM, it's already been decreed high up in USPA that it will never happen. In the Netherlands, is it actual LAW? In the USA, it will not be. This month's Parachutist magazine mentioned that one dz dropped group membership because they didn't want to provide their maintenance logs. Maintenance logs are law. Why not provide them? Simple. They didn't want to. Forcing dropzones to enforce more rules is not the solution, since they can easily opt out of USPA. I suppose USPA could try to say that member are not allowed to jump at any but USPA member dropzones. That would not fly. There would be lawsuits regarding illegal anti-competitive practices. You thought the Skyride suit was bad? Just wait for this one. Besides, the members would just quit and jump elsewhere. Being more forceful is not the solution. As someone said, maybe on this thread, or maybe on the American Boogie accident thread, we are instructors and advisors, not policemen. We can teach skills, but we cannot teach of enforce common sense. We reap what we sow. We have made skydiving look so easy and accessible that we are attracting people who don't have the common sense to conduct themselves with reasonable precautions for their own safety. I don't have a suggestion/solution, but more regulation won't fix it, since we can easily opt out of the regulatory body. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,123 #289 July 7, 2010 The one problem with a checklist is that once you've managed to check off the items, you're "good to go." Well, it's consistency and judgment that makes one a good pilot, and not the ability to do front riser turns 5 times in a row. Personally, I don't have a lot of problem with risk-taking. We are skydiving, after all. However, I'm sick of people: getting broken up casting our sport in a bad light for spectators, students, and people who read the newspaper endangering spectators and other jumpers (yes, they do sometimes) costing tax dollars when they turn out to be uninsured or underinsured and everyone else sanctimoniously defending their decisions as "impacting them alone." Bullshit. All of the above results are impacts on other jumpers and the public at large. Experienced jumpers get hurt and die too. Sometimes doing stupid shit. But the disciplined swoop students seem not to get hurt as often as the guys who are just "bad-ass" and "quick learners." And even after they all become experienced, it seems to be the same. Wendy P.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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DocPop 1 #290 July 7, 2010 QuoteThe one problem with a checklist is that once you've managed to check off the items, you're "good to go." I completely agree, but I think having to check off the items for B, C and D-licenses adds some more repetition to the process. I realize my proposal is far from a perfect solution, but a step in the right direction? I think so. We have to strike a balance between the right amount of coaching/education and the individual's freedom of choice. That is not going to be easy and there will always be people who complain about the current situation, just as there are those who complain about all change. I believe that the efficacy of the Dutch system is limited in that it only takes into account jump numbers (as I understand it) and there is a lot more than that to determining whether someone is under the correct wing. My proposal is that a pilot should have to demonstrate some level of skill under canopy at several points during their skydiving career, rather than just at <25 jumps then they are "good to go"."The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #291 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteHow do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test? No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands. So you didn't really mean "skill", did you? A complete klutz could be approved provided she had made enough jumps.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #292 July 7, 2010 Additonally if the USPA created a BSR limiting wingloading, they would open themselves, the DZs, and the manufacturers up to lawsuits from anyone being hurt or killed under "safe" canopies.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mswallin13 0 #293 July 7, 2010 Just as a philosophical question for the group... Why would USPA be concerned about the liability associated with a wing-loading BSR, but not be concerned about liability associated with creating a wingsuit BSR? Doesn't the same logic apply to a potential lawsuit if someone with 200 jumps within 18 months (or 500 total jumps) goes in on a wingsuit? I'm not advocating a position either way as to the right way to handle the issue, just trying to understand the rationale.Matthew Wallin C-37899 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dragon2 0 #294 July 7, 2010 Quote Quote Quote How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test? No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands. So you didn't really mean "skill", did you? A complete klutz could be approved provided she had made enough jumps. Yes, we still have klutzes (almost, Lutzes). And we have occasionally had klutzes end up on life support with an "approved canopy", after multiple talkings-to. This will still happen when an instructor will not GROUND a complete klutz. When the canopy rules were first introduced we also had a few people going from a spectre/sabre 1 150 straight to a vengeance/katana 120, because the jump number (500) said they could. The rules are not a substitude for common sense After adding a new category for 400-700 jumps, a 135 sqft max on stiletto-type canopies, this problem mostly went away. Our canopy rules give you the max canopy you CAN jump, not the max canopy you HAVE to jump... And instructors should still be good for something ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #295 July 7, 2010 QuoteJust as a philosophical question for the group... Why would USPA be concerned about the liability associated with a wing-loading BSR, but not be concerned about liability associated with creating a wingsuit BSR? Doesn't the same logic apply to a potential lawsuit if someone with 200 jumps within 18 months (or 500 total jumps) goes in on a wingsuit? I'm not advocating a position either way as to the right way to handle the issue, just trying to understand the rationale. I don't think that the liability issue is as big a problem as Bolas might think it is. My worry is membership, individual and/or group, alienation. If the individual members don't like the rules that are adopted, eventually they will stop being members. Since Group Membership requires that all jumpers at the Group Member dz are members, and since dropzones are businesses, if individual members start abandoning USPA, so will some Group Members. When other Group Members who remain see they are losing business by remaining Group Members, they will quit too. So, as I see it, over-regulation could conceivably destroy USPA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites fcajump 153 #296 July 7, 2010 QuoteI don't have a lot of problem with risk-taking. We are skydiving, after all. However, I'm sick of people: getting broken up casting our sport in a bad light for spectators, students, and people who read the newspaper endangering spectators and other jumpers (yes, they do sometimes) costing tax dollars when they turn out to be uninsured or underinsured +1 Quotedefending their decisions as "impacting them alone." Bullshit. All of the above results are impacts on other jumpers and the public at large. ++1 Even when you are careful enough to ensure no danger to spectators or other jumpers, your "impact" damages my sport, your friends/family. I'm not saying your CANT do what you want, I'm asking that we do what we've done with instruction at all other levels. Hell, there were rules on how many jumps you had to have prior to jumping a ram-air at all... until the gear improved and our methods of instructing caught up with the speed of the 'chutes. And that was spurred on by folks tired of seeing their friends injured/killed because they could not safely land their new "high-performance" open/flying canopies. Why should this be any different?? JWAlways remember that some clouds are harder than others... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #297 July 7, 2010 >Additonally if the USPA created a BSR limiting wingloading, they would open >themselves, the DZs, and the manufacturers up to lawsuits from anyone >being hurt or killed under "safe" canopies. This has been the argument against many BSR's. "If you set a minimum opening altitude, and someone opens into someone else at 3000 feet because of the BSR, USPA could be SUED!" That hasn't happened; I think it's something of a chimera. In most fields, new rules/guidelines/procedures that reduce the number of serious or fatal accidents is always preferable to increased incidents or fatalities. By far, the #1 way to reduce the threat of lawsuits from injury or death is to reduce the number of injuries or deaths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #298 July 7, 2010 QuoteJust as a philosophical question for the group... Why would USPA be concerned about the liability associated with a wing-loading BSR, but not be concerned about liability associated with creating a wingsuit BSR? Doesn't the same logic apply to a potential lawsuit if someone with 200 jumps within 18 months (or 500 total jumps) goes in on a wingsuit? I'm not advocating a position either way as to the right way to handle the issue, just trying to understand the rationale. In simplest terms, you have to have a canopy to skydive, you do not have to have a wingsuit which makes it far easier to restrict and enforce. The issue addressed in the BSR is less flying a wingsuit than not properly rigging one and falling out.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #299 July 7, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test? No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands. So you didn't really mean "skill", did you? A complete klutz could be approved provided she had made enough jumps. Yes, we still have klutzes (almost, Lutzes). And we have occasionally had klutzes end up on life support with an "approved canopy", after multiple talkings-to. This will still happen when an instructor will not GROUND a complete klutz. When the canopy rules were first introduced we also had a few people going from a spectre/sabre 1 150 straight to a vengeance/katana 120, because the jump number (500) said they could. The rules are not a substitude for common sense. After adding a new category for 400-700 jumps, a 135 sqft max on stiletto-type canopies, this problem mostly went away. Our canopy rules give you the max canopy you CAN jump, not the max canopy you HAVE to jump... And instructors should still be good for something So your rules rely on common sense and instructor intervention. But if people use common sense and instructors intervene, what is the need for the rules? There's a paradox.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dragon2 0 #300 July 7, 2010 Quote So your rules rely on common sense and instructor intervention. But if people use common sense and instructors intervene, what is the need for the rules? There's a paradox. There is, but apparently common sense seems to fail a lot where canopy choice is concerned. Or wingsuiting. Or camera jumping. Or using large amounts of lead with swooping. Or pulling as low as you want. ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next Page 12 of 20 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Designer 0 #279 June 7, 2003 Are wing loading police a good Idea?Humm,a tough question for sure.Busting people(low timers) is worse than busting an instructor,jumpmaster,experienced jumper for giving bad(misleading) info.Hey,most of us have taken chances with what we know,think we know and have experienced.Just suggesting that a person might not be ready for what they can afford can get you laughed at.I have real problems when it comes to this.You educate the best you can.If they don,t ask(it,s their funeral) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #280 June 7, 2003 QuoteAre wing loading police a good Idea? If you "anyone" wants to jump a higher loaded canopy that is your "their" choice. Anyone can give canopy advice. It is ultimately up to YOU to decide who you take it from. So.. If you are a jumper that hasn't done your homework and you get a highly loaded canopy you might want to choose WISELY who you get your schooling from. Don't pick the DZ disaster waiting to happen. Find someone that can fly. Swooping "or flying highly loaded canopies" is risk/reward thing. Most are willing to risk their ass for the reward of that type of flight. Like hook said.. Hope your bag of skill fills up before your bag of luck runs out. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 259 #281 July 7, 2010 It's been seven years since this thread was started. Still no BSR to help keep noobs off canopies they don't have the skill to handle. Lots more injured and dead guys who thought they had mad skillz though - and most of them could have avoided the pain if something had been done seven years ago, since most of them hadn't even seen a parachute back then. Will we ever learn? Nope. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #282 July 7, 2010 At least you got the USPA to institute a Canopy Progression card (that almost no one uses). Get a group together and stand in front of the USPA BOD so they can look you in the eye when they say "no." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 0 #283 July 7, 2010 I must say, ever since we have our canopy rules (since 2003), incidents involving non-students and non-swoopers have seem to gone down markedly. Complaints are still there, from girls "stuck" on 150/135 sqft canopies for a while (which is a GOOD thing IMO, and a lot of the complaints seem to be from BFs and the like...), and the inevitable mad skillz guys. Some mad skillz guys try to jump a non-approved canopy anyway (i.e. 50 jumps 200+ lbs bodyweight jumper got himself a stiletto 170, 3 jumps until he got caught out) and they have the option to go jump in Belgium if they want where they can get away with their canopy choice more often, or they conform and jump a sabre2 150 until 400 jumps, big deal... Also the canopy market seems stabilised again now, that took a while. Some stuff is still very hard to sell here... Anyway, while of course you can still get hurt jumping a "sensible" canopy, incidents seem to have gone down here in the "intermediate" range, and I think also in the more advanced >700 jump range but don't have the statistics to prove that. ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #284 July 7, 2010 Grown ass man or woman should be able to determine what they want to fly. If they wanna hook in, it should be their choice. If you are so saftey conscious than you should never skydive. and honestly any type of speed induced landing could be your last one, even at 1.1 wingloading. so now what? do we limit what kind of turn they should do at certain jump number??? till 100 jump straight in 200 double front 300 45 degree double front 400 90 degree double front. and so forth??? and who makes that decision??? some old dude in USPA chair who can't even go across the pond, and thinking, hmmmmmmm, "I" had trouble doing this at this jump number so "THEY" shouldn't do that??? with so many regulation makes me wanna go base.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #285 July 7, 2010 QuoteIt's been seven years since this thread was started. Still no BSR to help keep noobs off canopies they don't have the skill to handle. . How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 259 #286 July 7, 2010 QuoteHow do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test? No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands. Which appear to be having the intended effect - QuoteI must say, ever since we have our canopy rules (since 2003), incidents involving non-students and non-swoopers have seem to gone down markedly. Is it perfect? No. Does it limit some jumpers "freedom"? Yes - until they get some experience under their belt, that is. Will it reduce injuries? Yes. Will it make it easier for a DZO/DZM/S&TA to tell someone they can't jump that canopy? Yes. Will it make it easier for gear dealers and private sellers to tell someone they can't buy that canopy? Yes. Will I have to check the manifest to see if "that guy" is on it before I get on that load? Probably not. Will it happen? No. Even if someone presents it to the BOD. For, as I was told in a PM, it's already been decreed high up in USPA that it will never happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DocPop 1 #287 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteIt's been seven years since this thread was started. Still no BSR to help keep noobs off canopies they don't have the skill to handle. . How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test? I think that would be an excellent idea. Some kind of checklist involving the kind of canopy drills taught on canopy courses could be required for B, C and D licenses. With the current USPA system it is quite possible to never have any canopy advice or coaching after the A-license card is completed."The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #288 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteHow do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test? No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands. Which appear to be having the intended effect - QuoteI must say, ever since we have our canopy rules (since 2003), incidents involving non-students and non-swoopers have seem to gone down markedly. Is it perfect? No. Does it limit some jumpers "freedom"? Yes - until they get some experience under their belt, that is. Will it reduce injuries? Yes. Will it make it easier for a DZO/DZM/S&TA to tell someone they can't jump that canopy? Yes. Will it make it easier for gear dealers and private sellers to tell someone they can't buy that canopy? Yes. Will I have to check the manifest to see if "that guy" is on it before I get on that load? Probably not. Will it happen? No. Even if someone presents it to the BOD. For, as I was told in a PM, it's already been decreed high up in USPA that it will never happen. In the Netherlands, is it actual LAW? In the USA, it will not be. This month's Parachutist magazine mentioned that one dz dropped group membership because they didn't want to provide their maintenance logs. Maintenance logs are law. Why not provide them? Simple. They didn't want to. Forcing dropzones to enforce more rules is not the solution, since they can easily opt out of USPA. I suppose USPA could try to say that member are not allowed to jump at any but USPA member dropzones. That would not fly. There would be lawsuits regarding illegal anti-competitive practices. You thought the Skyride suit was bad? Just wait for this one. Besides, the members would just quit and jump elsewhere. Being more forceful is not the solution. As someone said, maybe on this thread, or maybe on the American Boogie accident thread, we are instructors and advisors, not policemen. We can teach skills, but we cannot teach of enforce common sense. We reap what we sow. We have made skydiving look so easy and accessible that we are attracting people who don't have the common sense to conduct themselves with reasonable precautions for their own safety. I don't have a suggestion/solution, but more regulation won't fix it, since we can easily opt out of the regulatory body. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,123 #289 July 7, 2010 The one problem with a checklist is that once you've managed to check off the items, you're "good to go." Well, it's consistency and judgment that makes one a good pilot, and not the ability to do front riser turns 5 times in a row. Personally, I don't have a lot of problem with risk-taking. We are skydiving, after all. However, I'm sick of people: getting broken up casting our sport in a bad light for spectators, students, and people who read the newspaper endangering spectators and other jumpers (yes, they do sometimes) costing tax dollars when they turn out to be uninsured or underinsured and everyone else sanctimoniously defending their decisions as "impacting them alone." Bullshit. All of the above results are impacts on other jumpers and the public at large. Experienced jumpers get hurt and die too. Sometimes doing stupid shit. But the disciplined swoop students seem not to get hurt as often as the guys who are just "bad-ass" and "quick learners." And even after they all become experienced, it seems to be the same. Wendy P.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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DocPop 1 #290 July 7, 2010 QuoteThe one problem with a checklist is that once you've managed to check off the items, you're "good to go." I completely agree, but I think having to check off the items for B, C and D-licenses adds some more repetition to the process. I realize my proposal is far from a perfect solution, but a step in the right direction? I think so. We have to strike a balance between the right amount of coaching/education and the individual's freedom of choice. That is not going to be easy and there will always be people who complain about the current situation, just as there are those who complain about all change. I believe that the efficacy of the Dutch system is limited in that it only takes into account jump numbers (as I understand it) and there is a lot more than that to determining whether someone is under the correct wing. My proposal is that a pilot should have to demonstrate some level of skill under canopy at several points during their skydiving career, rather than just at <25 jumps then they are "good to go"."The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #291 July 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteHow do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test? No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands. So you didn't really mean "skill", did you? A complete klutz could be approved provided she had made enough jumps.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #292 July 7, 2010 Additonally if the USPA created a BSR limiting wingloading, they would open themselves, the DZs, and the manufacturers up to lawsuits from anyone being hurt or killed under "safe" canopies.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mswallin13 0 #293 July 7, 2010 Just as a philosophical question for the group... Why would USPA be concerned about the liability associated with a wing-loading BSR, but not be concerned about liability associated with creating a wingsuit BSR? Doesn't the same logic apply to a potential lawsuit if someone with 200 jumps within 18 months (or 500 total jumps) goes in on a wingsuit? I'm not advocating a position either way as to the right way to handle the issue, just trying to understand the rationale.Matthew Wallin C-37899 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 0 #294 July 7, 2010 Quote Quote Quote How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test? No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands. So you didn't really mean "skill", did you? A complete klutz could be approved provided she had made enough jumps. Yes, we still have klutzes (almost, Lutzes). And we have occasionally had klutzes end up on life support with an "approved canopy", after multiple talkings-to. This will still happen when an instructor will not GROUND a complete klutz. When the canopy rules were first introduced we also had a few people going from a spectre/sabre 1 150 straight to a vengeance/katana 120, because the jump number (500) said they could. The rules are not a substitude for common sense After adding a new category for 400-700 jumps, a 135 sqft max on stiletto-type canopies, this problem mostly went away. Our canopy rules give you the max canopy you CAN jump, not the max canopy you HAVE to jump... And instructors should still be good for something ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #295 July 7, 2010 QuoteJust as a philosophical question for the group... Why would USPA be concerned about the liability associated with a wing-loading BSR, but not be concerned about liability associated with creating a wingsuit BSR? Doesn't the same logic apply to a potential lawsuit if someone with 200 jumps within 18 months (or 500 total jumps) goes in on a wingsuit? I'm not advocating a position either way as to the right way to handle the issue, just trying to understand the rationale. I don't think that the liability issue is as big a problem as Bolas might think it is. My worry is membership, individual and/or group, alienation. If the individual members don't like the rules that are adopted, eventually they will stop being members. Since Group Membership requires that all jumpers at the Group Member dz are members, and since dropzones are businesses, if individual members start abandoning USPA, so will some Group Members. When other Group Members who remain see they are losing business by remaining Group Members, they will quit too. So, as I see it, over-regulation could conceivably destroy USPA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fcajump 153 #296 July 7, 2010 QuoteI don't have a lot of problem with risk-taking. We are skydiving, after all. However, I'm sick of people: getting broken up casting our sport in a bad light for spectators, students, and people who read the newspaper endangering spectators and other jumpers (yes, they do sometimes) costing tax dollars when they turn out to be uninsured or underinsured +1 Quotedefending their decisions as "impacting them alone." Bullshit. All of the above results are impacts on other jumpers and the public at large. ++1 Even when you are careful enough to ensure no danger to spectators or other jumpers, your "impact" damages my sport, your friends/family. I'm not saying your CANT do what you want, I'm asking that we do what we've done with instruction at all other levels. Hell, there were rules on how many jumps you had to have prior to jumping a ram-air at all... until the gear improved and our methods of instructing caught up with the speed of the 'chutes. And that was spurred on by folks tired of seeing their friends injured/killed because they could not safely land their new "high-performance" open/flying canopies. Why should this be any different?? JWAlways remember that some clouds are harder than others... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #297 July 7, 2010 >Additonally if the USPA created a BSR limiting wingloading, they would open >themselves, the DZs, and the manufacturers up to lawsuits from anyone >being hurt or killed under "safe" canopies. This has been the argument against many BSR's. "If you set a minimum opening altitude, and someone opens into someone else at 3000 feet because of the BSR, USPA could be SUED!" That hasn't happened; I think it's something of a chimera. In most fields, new rules/guidelines/procedures that reduce the number of serious or fatal accidents is always preferable to increased incidents or fatalities. By far, the #1 way to reduce the threat of lawsuits from injury or death is to reduce the number of injuries or deaths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #298 July 7, 2010 QuoteJust as a philosophical question for the group... Why would USPA be concerned about the liability associated with a wing-loading BSR, but not be concerned about liability associated with creating a wingsuit BSR? Doesn't the same logic apply to a potential lawsuit if someone with 200 jumps within 18 months (or 500 total jumps) goes in on a wingsuit? I'm not advocating a position either way as to the right way to handle the issue, just trying to understand the rationale. In simplest terms, you have to have a canopy to skydive, you do not have to have a wingsuit which makes it far easier to restrict and enforce. The issue addressed in the BSR is less flying a wingsuit than not properly rigging one and falling out.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #299 July 7, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote How do you propose to evaluate that skill? Some kind of test? No. Absolute limits based on jump numbers, like those in the Netherlands. So you didn't really mean "skill", did you? A complete klutz could be approved provided she had made enough jumps. Yes, we still have klutzes (almost, Lutzes). And we have occasionally had klutzes end up on life support with an "approved canopy", after multiple talkings-to. This will still happen when an instructor will not GROUND a complete klutz. When the canopy rules were first introduced we also had a few people going from a spectre/sabre 1 150 straight to a vengeance/katana 120, because the jump number (500) said they could. The rules are not a substitude for common sense. After adding a new category for 400-700 jumps, a 135 sqft max on stiletto-type canopies, this problem mostly went away. Our canopy rules give you the max canopy you CAN jump, not the max canopy you HAVE to jump... And instructors should still be good for something So your rules rely on common sense and instructor intervention. But if people use common sense and instructors intervene, what is the need for the rules? There's a paradox.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 0 #300 July 7, 2010 Quote So your rules rely on common sense and instructor intervention. But if people use common sense and instructors intervene, what is the need for the rules? There's a paradox. There is, but apparently common sense seems to fail a lot where canopy choice is concerned. Or wingsuiting. Or camera jumping. Or using large amounts of lead with swooping. Or pulling as low as you want. ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
