Wingload BSR.

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

Creating a BSR representes almost zero cost to the jumpers or USPA.

That is true, but I was advocating keeping the USPA the way it is and not making it more powerful. Every time a recommendation becomes a BSR we lose the ability to decide for ourselves. In addition, the more BSR's that USPA produces the more liability it incurrs and the expense to protect against that liability increases. That expense will be passed on to the USPA members.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[diablopilot 2]

That's a continual problem the USPA BOD seems to have. Holding S&TA's, instructional rating holders, and Group Members to any sort of standard.

Group Members with repeated BSR and FAR violations are allow to remain members.

Instructors with the same violations are allowed to keep ratings, and they are not held to a standard of instruction.

S&TA's are not given the tools needed to do the job.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

That's a continual problem the USPA BOD seems to have. Holding S&TA's, instructional rating holders, and Group Members to any sort of standard.

Group Members with repeated BSR and FAR violations are allow to remain members.

Instructors with the same violations are allowed to keep ratings, and they are not held to a standard of instruction.

S&TA's are not given the tools needed to do the job.

Perhaps that needs to be sorted out before we created more rules that can't/won't be enforced consistently.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[diablopilot 2]

That's what some of us have been pushing for for the last 5 to 7 years. It's not working.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

S&TA's are not given the tools needed to do the job.

What exactly is 'the job'?

The S&TA is not intended to be a babysitter, nor to monitor every activity taking place on the DZ. The S&TA is there to adivse jumpers and instructors on the issues of safety and training.

If you as a jumper have a question about a safety issue, or have seen what you believe to be a safety violation, the S&TA is your man (or woman).

If an instuctor has a question about a training issue, or have seen what they believe to be improper actions on the part of another instructor, the S&TA is your man (or woman).

If you are in need of signatures for a rating renewal or license application, or need someone to conduct live water training or a night jump briefing, the S&TA is your man (yes, or woman).

That really it, though. The S&TA is an experiecned, qualified representative of the USPA who is elected to administer and advise as to the policies of the USPA. They are the USPAs 'line in the sand' at a group member DZ, and are there as a 'check and balance' to the DZO, who also serves many of the same purposes.

They are not now, nor were they ever, nor will they be anytime in the near future intended to 'babysit' the jumpers at any DZ, and monitor each and every action at the DZ. They are not paid for the work they do, and as such are not, and cannot be expected to be present anytime there are jumping activities taking place at the DZ.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

the more BSR's that USPA produces the more liability it incurrs and the expense to protect against that liability increases. That expense will be passed on to the USPA members.

Are you suggesting (as others have) that the USPA would be liable for anyone being hurt under a canopy that falls within the suggested WL?

Is the USPA liable for any jumper hurt pulling above the USPAs min pull aititude?

Is the USPA liable for any jumper hurt jumping in winds below the USPA max wind limitation?

The answer on both counts, and to the quesiton of liability in regards to WL, is no. The BSRs are intended for jumpers to use a guidelines for making a safe skydive. Evey BSR in the book applies only to those individuals who have already made the decision to jump.

These BSR are not intended to lure non-jumpers into the plane with the implication that follwoing them will guarantee a safe skydve. They are intended to be followed by properly trained jumpers seeking to make a safer skydive, with the key words in the sentence being 'making a skydive'. The jump, and the risk, is already going to happen, and the BSRs help to make it a safer experience, but they in no way suggest or imply that there is a gurantee of safety.

There is no added liability, or cost to protect against said liability, by adding a Wl BSR.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Thanks for relying on the wisdom of USPA.

USPA, in its wisdom, has so far decided against a WL BSR.

And in their wisdom they have decided to make a "professional educator" like yourself jump through the same hoops as everyone else.

Thank goodness for that.

Did you have a point or are you just being offensive?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

How then, does a jumper travel to another DZ with their rig? How do they know that the local LO won't ground them with their canopy of choice? What would they do then?

They would do this using the same social network constructs that are used in the FS world.

For example, if you are on a bigway in FL and want to get on a bigway in CA, you send a reference to the CA organizer.
Those two people talk about what skill level the jumper has and where his weaknesses are. (visa versa)

The swooper LO person should be one of the super-duper swoopers at the DZ, not necessarily the S&TA or DZO.
This also parallels bigway organizing.

If someone is coming from a small DZ, and does not know any of the top level organizers, they need to demonstrate their skills.

Quote

Having a basic, jump number based WL chart is the best, most uniform way to ensure that jumpers take an easy, progressive path to building their canopy piloting experience. Even if a jumper was to downsize every 100 jumps as the chart allows, I think that putting 100 jumps on a canopy, and then upping your WL .1 is a sound plan. 100 hops on a canopy is a fair number to get the hang of things, and .1 is avery modest bump to a WL.

Possible inadequate labeling of the chart aside, I'll ask again, what's the downside to this type of arrangement?

A downside, as I already mentioned, is that people think of it as "I should be at this WL with this many jumps'.
Changing the title won't fix that problem.

Another downside is that it makes people think that they don't need guidance from others along the way.
IOW, they think "Hey, I have x many jumps, therefore I can jump z WL."
Most people know it is more complicated than that, for all disciplines too.

In all disciplines, you do need guidance from others.
Sometimes it is about skill level, but more often than not, it is the knowledge base of the discipline that is missing from an up-and-coming jumper.
A WL chart will not impart the requisite knowledge to a jumper and may mislead them into thinking that the chart is all there is to it.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

In other words - make the S&TA do their job?

Nope. This is not about S&TAs or the DZO.

It is about getting the local super-duper swoopers to act as LOs for the want-to-be swoopers.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[MakeItHappen 15]

I want to add another analogy that hopefully will clarify my points.

Suppose USPA or some other NAC created an FS progression chart.

For example, an arbitrary progression chart of:

Number of Jumps      Maximum FS Load Size

100                       20

200                       50

300                       75

400                      100

>500                    unlimited

This has never happen (except for some UK rules for people with less than 100 jumps).

The reason this type of progression chart has never been needed is because of the function that FS LOs play.

What I am pointing out is that if we create and encourage CP LOs to fill a similar role that FS LOs play, then we can mitigate the CP carnage.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[davelepka 4]

Quote

They would do this using the same social network constructs that are used in the FS world.

For example, if you are on a bigway in FL and want to get on a bigway in CA, you send a reference to the CA organizer.

That works for bigway organizers because they are vetting a limited number of jumpers for a specific time period on the DZ, the week of the bigway camp. Additionally, the bigway organizers have other motivations for checking references, such as the safety of the other jumpers and the success of their event (which leads to future events), all of which contributes to them making money.

It wouldn't work on a local level becase you can't provide that type of oversight for every jumper on every load at the DZ, it's just not possible. When you add in the fact that this would be an unpaid position, how would you suggest you attract people to this thankless job?

Quote

A downside, as I already mentioned, is that people think of it as "I should be at this WL with this many jumps'.
Changing the title won't fix that problem.

As I already pointed out, even a jumper who follows the max WL to the number is still going to represent an easy and conservative approach to downsizing. The numbers on the chart don't represent the max WL that might possibly be safe for a jumper of X jumps, it represents a conservative WL that should be applicable to the majority of jumpers with X jumps.

Those jumpers who's skill lags behind the conservative progression of the chart should certainly recognize this at some point during their first 100 jumps (the interval before their next possible downsize) and proceed accordingly. Maybe they keep their current canopy, maybe they seek additional training, who knows. Even if they downsize anyway, this reveals the weakness of a system nobody ever suggested was 'perfect', just a good place to start.

The reality is that a jumper who would downsize because that had hit X00 jumps, despite a poor record of performance during the previous 100 jumps, would obviously be displaying a lack of judgement, and would be making poor choices BSR or no BSR. Even if there wasn't a chart telling them they could jump X canopy, they would most likely make a poor choice on their own, with no outside influence.

[brettski74 0]

Quote

Page 56 of the April 2010 Parachutist states that 56% of fatalities in 2009 were D-licenced skydivers.

This is a different data set from my numbers up-thread but supports the same point.

There are lots of ways to look at data, howver, comparing absolute numbers for two populations is rarely considered valid unless the populations are of roughly equal size. Based on the dropzones I've been to, the number of jumpers flying 1.5+ wing loads and having 1000+ jumps is at least 5-10 times the number of sub-500 jump pilots flying similarly high wing loads. A lot of those more experienced jumpers are also working as videographers, coaches, instructors, organizers or are professional competitive skydivers, so on average, they also do more jumps and have to perform more landings. Your analysis would be more relevant if it consdiered the risks on a per-capita or per-jump basis. Comparing absolute numbers is relatively meaningless when there are comparatively few jumpers under the 500 jump mark who fly at wing loads above 1.5.

There are many other aspects of wing load limits that are not considered by your position. For example, if we assume that those 40% of fatalities would never have happened at lower wing loads, then such limits could have produced a 40% reduction in canopy related fatalities which many would agree is a good result. There may be other impacts from such limits that may be difficult to quantify, such as jumpers who downsize more slowly learn more about canopy flight in their early years of jumping and subsequently reduce the number of canopy related incidents later in their career at higher jumps numbers. On the other hand, it could also lead people to false conclusions, such as safely flying high performance landings and high wing loads simply requires a certain number of jumps rather than a program of skill development over the course of those jumps, which could increase incident rates. This is all based on speculation and/or anecdotal evidence at best, so I won't try to pass this off as hard facts. I don't think there's an easy answer. Hard data from the dutch experience would be useful in this debate. I think that the data put forth so far in the recent posts of this thread is inadequate to support any decision.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

The reason this type of progression chart has never been needed is because of the function that FS LOs play.

I'm sure you haven't read my other reply yet, but again, this example is flawed.

The reason a LO can vet the jumper they are orgnizing is that it's a very contained situaiton. It's limited number of jumpers on a specific load (or series of loads).

That job pales in comarison to that of checking every jumper on every load on the DZ. When you factor in fun jumpers, occasional jumpers, visting jumpers, and new jumpers, you get into a large number of poeple.

Expand that to consider that there would be a need for the CP LO to be at the DZ every time a load flies, and you have an even bigger problem.

Remember that FS LO can monitor who is on their jumps because it's just that, their jump. This implies that they are present and on the skydive, making it practical for them to keep track of who's who.

Let me ask this - Do you expect a FS LO to keep track of every FS group on every load during the day they are orgaizing, or just the groups they are organizing? In order to make your comparison complete, the FS LO would have to approve every jumper in every FS group on every load.

[crashtested 0]

I'm slighltly confused why a person would downsize if it was not for speed and performance...

So your telling me that the problem is not the hp canopy size, its kids on HP canopys swooping them into the ground??

Then it seems that This is a swooping issue then, rather than a Wing loading issue.

I say to you again, YOU need to implement rules at your own DZ to stop that happening, My current DZ has done so. I don't think it was a complicated thing to do.

Quote

Welcome to reality, that's what we have now.

The reality is that we have people who would prefer to bitch and moan on a forum rather than implement real change at there DZ, either by talking to the Owner about there concerns, or voting with there feet.

DOn't get me wrong i like a good shout out as well as the rest of you, but if you really are concerned than you need to be more proactive in your aproach.

And the problem is not at my DZ, its at yours.

[brettski74 0]

Quote

This has never happen (except for some UK rules for people with less than 100 jumps).

The reason this type of progression chart has never been needed is because of the function that FS LOs play.

What I am pointing out is that if we create and encourage CP LOs to fill a similar role that FS LOs play, then we can mitigate the CP carnage.

While I see your point and it does make some sense, I don't think it would work on a wider scale. Larger dropzones might be able to make it work and maybe even mid-sized dropzones. The difference with FS as opposed to CP is that at smaller dropzones you don't need a load organizer to prevent someone with 50 jumps getting on a 20-way formation. There simply isn't the people or lift capacity to do such large formations. For CP, you can fly a Velocity just as easily when jumping from a Cessna 172 as you can from a Casa C-212. What is the solution for jumpers at smaller dropzones?

Another problem I see is time. My home dz has a Twin Otter, a reasonable number of regulars and some very skilled canopy pilots, including one who's competed at worlds. Most of the best swoopers are also camera flyers for the DZ. They're willing to provide tips and suggestions to up and comers, but they are unlikely to have the time to play full-time canopy coach for the DZ. I also doubt it's a position that the DZ could afford to make a paid position to make it worth their while to give up the camera slot.

I still don't know what the solution is, and while I could see this working at places like Perris or Eloy, I can't see it working everywhere.

[DocPop 1]

Quote

If you as a jumper have a question about a safety issue, or have seen what you believe to be a safety violation, the S&TA is your man (or woman).

Is that not exactly what we are talking about here?

My understanding of this part of an S&TA's role is that they should address safety concerns at a DZ, this would most definitely include a jumper doing something for which they are not sufficiently skilled, such as jumping a camera, a wingsuit, or a canopy beyond their skill range.

Given that an S&TA judges that someone is exceeding their abilities and that it is causing an danger to themselves or others, the S&TA should take action, up to and including grounding that jumper.

If I am correct in the above, then we do have the mechanism for enforcing safer canopy flight. What we do not have is the will to do it.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Thanks for relying on the wisdom of USPA.

USPA, in its wisdom, has so far decided against a WL BSR.

And in their wisdom they have decided to make a "professional educator" like yourself jump through the same hoops as everyone else.

Thank goodness for that.

Did you have a point or are you just being offensive?

Yes.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

I'm slighltly confused why a person would downsize if it was not for speed and performance...

So your telling me that the problem is not the hp canopy size, its kids on HP canopys swooping them into the ground??



.

Impossible to tell from the data that the BSR proponents have presented. Maybe the limit should be by AGE rather than by jump numbers. I don't see too many SOS members femuring in.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[in2jumping 0]

Quote

The reason this type of progression chart has never been needed is because of the function that FS LOs play.

Big difference here is that FS is a group activity and piloting a canopy is a pretty much solo activity.

[billvon 2,400]

>Page 56 of the April 2010 Parachutist states that 56% of fatalities in 2009
>were D-licenced skydivers.

You do not need 1000 jumps to get a D license. From my count of 2009 fatalities from the database here, about 55% had fewer than 1000 jumps.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

>Page 56 of the April 2010 Parachutist states that 56% of fatalities in 2009
>were D-licenced skydivers.

You do not need 1000 jumps to get a D license. From my count of 2009 fatalities from the database here, about 55% had fewer than 1000 jumps.

What % of active skydivers have <1000 jumps?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Quote

>Page 56 of the April 2010 Parachutist states that 56% of fatalities in 2009
>were D-licenced skydivers.

You do not need 1000 jumps to get a D license. From my count of 2009 fatalities from the database here, about 55% had fewer than 1000 jumps.

What % of active skydivers have <1000 jumps?

Me too. It would be nice to know the jump number distribution of the jumping population.
Like:

1-50

50-250

250-500

500-1000

1000-2000

2000-5000

5000+

[brettski74 0]

Give that the intention here appears to be establishing a link between jump numbers, aggressive downsizing and incidents, at a minimum you would also need to know not only the breakdown of jumpers with varying numbers of jumps, but you'd also need to know the canopy flown by each jumper and their wing loading.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Give that the intention here appears to be establishing a link between jump numbers, aggressive downsizing and incidents, at a minimum you would also need to know not only the breakdown of jumpers with varying numbers of jumps, but you'd also need to know the canopy flown by each jumper and their wing loading.

What that will tell you is the number and nature of open canopy fatalities.

What that won't tell you is the number and nature of open canopy non-fatal incidents, incidents caused by low jump-number high-WL jumpers resulting in injuries to others, and close calls caused by low jump-number high-WL jumpers.

While those events might not be as dire as fatalities, I, for one, would like to see those eliminated or reduced as well.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Give that the intention here appears to be establishing a link between jump numbers, aggressive downsizing and incidents, at a minimum you would also need to know not only the breakdown of jumpers with varying numbers of jumps, but you'd also need to know the canopy flown by each jumper and their wing loading.

What that will tell you is the number and nature of open canopy fatalities.

What that won't tell you is the number and nature of open canopy non-fatal incidents, incidents caused by low jump-number high-WL jumpers resulting in injuries to others, and close calls caused by low jump-number high-WL jumpers.

While those events might not be as dire as fatalities, I, for one, would like to see those eliminated or reduced as well.

Non fatal incidents are not consistently reported, whereas fatalities are. Even though the numbers are fewer the fatality data are more reliable.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.