Wingload BSR.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Non fatal incidents are not consistently reported, whereas fatalities are

That's my point. If you look at the fatality reports, it only tells you about fatal incidents with open canopies. If you consider the other problems that could occur with an open canopy, such as personal injury, causing injury to others, and close calls, you can see that the data available only reports on a small percentage of what problems could occur with an open canopy. Anyone using that data as their sole source of information when considering this topic is ignorng the majority of what could go wrong when people fly canopies above their skill level.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Without a test of skill, how are you going to sensibly set your numbers to address the facts?

Same way they did it in the Netherlands.

Recent Elsinore incident illustrates very well that jump numbers are NOT equivalent to skill, ability or judgment.

...

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

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Without a test of skill, how are you going to sensibly set your numbers to address the facts?

Same way they did it in the Netherlands.

Recent Elsinore incident illustrates very well that jump numbers are NOT equivalent to skill, ability or judgment.

Than how to measure skills?

[wmw999 2,123]

No BSR will keep everyone from hurting themselves in a given way. The minimum pull altitude BSR didn't stop low pulls, but it did reduce them.

Drivers' licenses don't stop auto fatalities; but think of how much worse it would probably be without them.

Personally, I think that the real test for high-performance canopies isn't whether you're going to biff yourself, it's whether you are responsible in traffic. Which means that the penalty for messing up in traffic should be swift and sure (like that's going to happen ).

With a high-performance canopy your opportunity to overtake others either from behind or above increases significantly, and it should be mandatory to prove that you have the ability to remain safe. The penalty to others for failure is significant.

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)

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Recent Elsinore incident illustrates very well that jump numbers are NOT equivalent to skill, ability or judgment

WTF? Pilotdave responded to your post with a great reply, and now it's gone. Maybe he deleted it? Not sure why he would do that..

Either way, the incident highlights that even with reasonable amounts of experience and training, flying parachtues is a dangerous business. Much like flying airplanes, there are caveats and catch-22s galore in the world of canopy flight, and they become more of a factor as canopies get faster, or when inexperienced pilots push to hard.

Much like airplanes, all I'm saying is that additional training, and a tiered advancement system be put into place. A new pilot is not ready for a high performance or a complex aircraft, and this is why there are endorsements for those. True, you can earn those endorsements with any number of hours, but it will take some stick time with a CFI to pass the checkride for either of those with a low number of hours. The alternative is to log a couple hundred hours of in low performace fixed gear plane, and build the skills to pass the checkride with a minnimum of dual time required.

As a pilot, you may be familiar with the moniker 'Dr Killer' given the old V-tail Bonanzas. Once they reinforced the tail, there was nothing wrong with those airplanes, but they had a reputation for killing doctors because they were cheap enough for a Dr to afford, the same Drs who worked 80 hour weeks and could only fly a few hours a month. So you a take a low time pilot who has the dough to buy a Bonanza, and then with a lack of currency and experience, they often times ended up in a pile of burning aluminum. This is a case where even the regs of the FAA failed, and allowed the poor judgement of over confident Drs trump the system.

Let's reduce it down a bit for canopy flight. While canopies are far simpler than aircraft, so is the trainging to become a skydver in realtion to becoming a pilot. Any shithead off the street can muscle through AFF, while is takes a bit more intelligence to become a private pilot. The problem is that it's too easy to become a jumper, and then to be released to the 'wild west' for us to expect that to work. If only smarter people could pass AFF, maybe we wouldn't need any sort of regulation, but as it sits we'll pass anyone we can get in the plane, so we need a little on going guidance.

Is anything going to guarantee safety? No. Should we have some sort of on going education to accompany the Wl regulation? Of course. That's probably the more important part of the equation, but due to that it's also the more complicated and tougher to structure and implement.

So I say we institute a WL BSR, and begin work on the training program to parallel it. What the BSR does is cement the idea that canopy flight and training is important, and not to be taken lightly. It gives the DZOs and S&TAs some teeth and some paper to fall back on when dealing with eager newbies. It begins to create a community of jumpers who recognize and embrace the concept that aggressve downsizing is not cool.

I'll ask this question of you again, as I still haven't got an answer form you, what's the harm in a WL BSR? Who or what would be harned by ensuring that all new jumpers follow a steady and reasonable course of downsizing?

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

I'll ask this question of you again, as I still haven't got an answer form you, what's the harm in a WL BSR? Who or what would be harned by ensuring that all new jumpers follow a steady and reasonable course of downsizing?

Nothing, as long as it relies on an evaluation of the jumper's abilities and awareness rather than on jump numbers, which have never yet been proven to be meaningful in this context.

Pinning your BSR on a meaningless parameter is counter-productive.

...

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

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Pinning your BSR on a meaningless parameter is counter-productive.

I'm assuming that you mean the BSR itself would be conter-productive. If the BSR was productive, and whatever it was pinned was not, that would be a moot point as the end result would remain a productive BSR.

With that in mind, I'm interested to hear how it would be counter-productive? In what way would set back the progress of reducing the number of open canopy incidents and increasing jumper education (keeping in mind that I've always included ongoing eduction with a Wl BSR)?

I can understand if you doubt the link between over-aggresive downsizing and open canopy incidents, but I cannot see how a Wl BSR would have a negative effect. It's possible it would have no effect, but I'm not sure how you would count that as counter-productive.

Beyond the semantics, have you considered the effect that have a WL BSR in place would have on the community as a whole? Much like other BSRs, it's only a matter of time before they become accepted by 'the masses', and busting the BSR is as uncool as busting any other BSR. Eventually, we'll have a generation of jumpers who began skydiving with a Wl BSR in place, and simply consider it as part of the skydivnig landscape.

I know it hasn't been the norm thus far, but to be fair, we're new to high performance canopies. I give sport jumping about 60 years in existance to date. Modern Z-po canopies, the type that can load up to 2.0+ and not break your ankles on every landing have been around for under 20 years. Tack on another 5 years for them to catch on and become the 'standard' for every new jumper. What you end up with is a factor that has been in existance for less than 25% of the existance of sport jumping itself.

For us to assume that our initail approach to this development in the sport, which was to do nothing from a training or regualtory approach, was the correct approach and should stand is short-sighted and irresponsible. For us to assume that we know everything there is to know about the new development (in terms of the life of sport jumping, Z-po canopies are new) is also short-sighted and irresponsible.

The genie is out of the bottle. We've given it over a decade of 'wait and see', and it's consistantly been the #1 killer of jumpers every year. Is it really hard to imagine that the staus quo is not the best course fo action?

Even if a WL BSR was instituted that had no educational component to it was implemented, I can't see how it will do any harm. It may upset a small percentage of jumpers, those currently effected and thus 'held back' by the BSR, but aside from that I cannot concieve how it would do any 'harm' what so ever.

[DocPop 1]

But setting the precedent for writing BSRs based on meaningless parameters must surely be viewed as negative.

Most people in this sport are against over-regulation, so in order to be fair to the majority, we must ensure any regulations which are introduced are based on hard facts and data.

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

~ CanuckInUSA

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Most people in this sport are against over-regulation

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, and to take it one step further, how you can classify a Wl BSR as over-regulation?

Keeping in mind that the average longevity in this sport was said to be around 5 years, all I can see is that the majority of jumpers in this sport have less then five years of experience, and lack the long term viewpoint needed to really speak on the issue of regulation. If those jumpers are likey to be effected by said regulation, can you really count on their opinion to be unbiased and not self-serving?

On the issue of a Wl BSR being classified as 'over-regulation', how can that determination be made with instituting such a BSR, and examining the results? We clearly know the lay of the land without, so we would need to see the effects of the BSR itself before making that determination.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Pinning your BSR on a meaningless parameter is counter-productive.

I'm assuming that you mean the BSR itself would be conter-productive.

I meant exactly what I wrote. Don't extrapolate.

...

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

[DocPop 1]

I am not saying that a WL BSR is necessarily over-regulation. I am saying that a WL BSR based on meaningless parameters is an unnecessary one, and is therefore over-regulation.

I came to the conclusion that most people in the sport don't want over-regulation from reading the hundreds of threads on dz.com and speaking to many people at many dropzones, including those in the UK who view the BPA as the "Ban Parachuting Association" precisely because of over-regulation.

If my supposition is wrong, why bother with a BSR (which many people will ignore if they don't like it)? Let's go for a wing-loading FAR.

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

~ CanuckInUSA

[billvon 2,400]

>I meant exactly what I wrote.

In that case I have to agree with Dave. A BSR that is useful in preventing injury, even if it is based on data you consider meaningless, is still useful (which is the opposite of counterproductive.)

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

>I meant exactly what I wrote.

In that case I have to agree with Dave. A BSR that is useful in preventing injury, even if it is based on data you consider meaningless, is still useful (which is the opposite of counterproductive.)

True, but first you have to develop one that WILL prevent injury, which you haven't. You just hope it will, based on no proof.

...

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

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Quote

>I meant exactly what I wrote.

In that case I have to agree with Dave. A BSR that is useful in preventing injury, even if it is based on data you consider meaningless, is still useful (which is the opposite of counterproductive.)

True, but first you have to develop one that WILL prevent injury, which you haven't. You just hope it will, based on no proof.

You can not prevent things happening in this life.

[Bolas 5]

200ish jumps and an almost 1.5 loading on a Katana?

You're the poster boy for the people who want this type of BSR.

I'll make a few assumptions about you:

1. You do lots of jumps, most of them focusing on canopy flight.
2. You are getting canopy coaching.

Even with that, you're taking a much bigger risk than someone with your jump numbers loading at 1.1 to 1.2 on a more docile wing. You stand a much higher chance of getting badly injured or killed. There are some things you can do in addition to bring the risk down minimally more (slow flight, braked approaches, etc.) but it's still an extremely high level of risk.

That said, if you truly understand and accept that risk, I'm of the opinion you should be allowed to jump it at any DZ unless their own DZO/S&TA has stricter rules.

Did I load that high at that jump #? No.
Do I think it's a good idea? No.
Do I feel a central organization has the right to tell you what DZOs can and can't do in this case? No.
Do I feel the DZOs have a right to impose their own restrictions? Yes.

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

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

True, but first you have to develop one that WILL prevent injury, which you haven't

False. You have to develop one that will REDUCE injury. Clearly, keeping newer jumpers from small canopies will reduce injury.

Stop talking in absolutes, it's not helpful.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Nothing, as long as it relies on an evaluation of the jumper's abilities and awareness rather than on jump numbers, which have never yet been proven to be meaningful in this context.

Pinning your BSR on a meaningless parameter is counter-productive.

How?

Who will be hurt by such a jump number based BSR?

You talk a lot but offer no viable solutions.

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

[DSE 3]

I believe a BSR based on jump numbers alone is a good start, but like everything else needs external input.
There is empirical evidence that protecting jumpers from themselves via wingloading has worked in other countries.
Jump numbers may/are not the only solution, but it's the best baseline existing that can somewhat blanket the sport.

There will be the naysayers that point to someone pounding in with thousands of jumps, but those are the rarities vs the norm/average, and average seems to be where the BSR is pointed.

How is it that experiencedpeople coupled with common sense can see these incidents coming long before they happen, yet we should not be allowed point to jump numbers as being relevant?

[DocPop 1]

I agree with all your points.

I don't want this thread to fall into the all to familiar "bash-defend" cycle that dz.com is peppered with, but to respond to your post:

1. I agree that I could put myself at a lower risk than I am doing, and I accept that.
2. The DZO and S&TA where I jump are aware of my jump numbers, ability and canopy/WL.
3. If there was a BSR which stated I could not jump this canopy yet, and I could ignore it - I would.

Again, I agree with your points and accept the risks.

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

~ CanuckInUSA

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

WTF? Pilotdave responded to your post with a great reply, and now it's gone. Maybe he deleted it? Not sure why he would do that..

Thanks. Yes, I deleted it. Decided to let someone else argue with him.
Dave

[billvon 2,400]

>True, but first you have to develop one that WILL prevent injury . . .

No BSR can do that. No FAR, no law, no guideline, no AFF course, no pilot's license, no canopy control course can prevent injury. All we can do is reduce the odds of such injury.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>True, but first you have to develop one that WILL prevent injury . . .

No BSR can do that. No FAR, no law, no guideline, no AFF course, no pilot's license, no canopy control course can prevent injury. All we can do is reduce the odds of such injury.

You can't even really do that. You can try to reduce the odds, the same as education does.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>You can't even really do that. You can try to reduce the odds, the same as
>education does.

Valid point. Yes, all you can do is try. I think history has shown that most BSR's have at least reduced the odds of an average skydiver dying in that manner (by, say, pulling low or drowning.)

[JackC1 0]

How about a BSR that says no wing loading higher than Y at X jumps unless a recognised canopy piloting course has been undertaken and passed to the satisfaction of an advanced instructor/CCI? Anyone with more than X jumps can fly whatever they want. You could even scale wing loading as a function of jump numbers as per Brian Germain's chart if you want to get complicated.

That provides a jump number limit for low experienced people and a way of assessing the skills of a jumper to enable them to bypass that limit, and it encourages people to get decent training and prove they are up to the job.

The downsides are more rules, complicated ones at that, and more cost to get training for those who want to bypass the rules. Of course if BSRs are unenforceable or voluntary (I wouldn't know, I'm not a USPA jumper), you're wasting your time even trying.

[billvon 2,400]

>How about a BSR that says no wing loading higher than Y at X jumps unless
>a recognised canopy piloting course has been undertaken and passed to
>the satisfaction of an advanced instructor/CCI?

Not a bad idea. Here are a few proposals from years past:

=======================================:
OK, after a few go arounds, let me present my idea for take 2:

First off, John Kallend had an objection to using arbitrary numbers that have no canopy skills tied to them. So the first change is to base it on license levels that DO have canopy skills (accuracy, primarily) associated with them. So we go from the Brian Germain plan to:

A license - 1 psf max
B license - 1.1 psf max
C license - 1.3 psf max
D license - no limit

This doesn't allow as much of a progression as the Brian Germain plan but does link the loadings to demonstrated skills.

Zenister had an objection that it should really be under the control of the S+TA, and should not be mandatory for absolutely everyone. So we make it the most waiverable of BSR's (type S) such that it can be waived by any S+TA or I/E. This still keeps the 30 jump wonders off Stiletto 97's, but gives newer jumpers TWO options to get out of the restriction - take a canopy control course or get the S+TA to waiver them. Since the S+TA is required to maintain a record that he waivered them, he will likely want to make sure that the jumper can actually land the canopy before putting his name on the waiver.

And we also incorporate my original thing about being able to get out of these requirements completely by taking a canopy control course. What the requirements are for that are still up in the air, but Derek took a good swipe at it before. A reasonable progression would be:

-at first can be run by any I, and students must demonstrate a list of canopy skills. It will be like AFF; there will be a set of TLO's, and if you can complete them all in one jump, great. If not, it might take more.

-once there is a CI rating in place, they can hold the courses and/or sign off people for higher loadings.

Finally, we grandfather everyone with a small canopy for a year, so no one will be forced to sell their Stiletto and buy a PD230.
=====================
Take 3 on the canopy-loading issue.

Take them out of the BSR's and put them in the license restriction part of the SIM. These are essentially recommendations; the S+TA decides which have to be enforced. The limits are:

A license - 1 psf max
B license - 1.1 psf max
C license - 1.3 psf max
D license - no limit

Also institute a canopy control syllabus, initally to be taught by any USPA instructional rating holder (from coach to I/E) then eventually taught by a canopy coach, once the canopy coach certification system is in place. Anyone who takes (and passes) the course is exempt from the requirements.

Most of the complaints about a BSR has been concerning the egregious loss of personal freedoms by any BSR. So we take it out of the BSR's, make it a recommendation, and put it on the shoulders of the S+TA's and DZO's. They now have something in the SIM to back them up if they do have to go head to head with a jumper who is absoultely, positively sure they can jump a Stiletto 97 at 39 jumps. That way the SIM serves to support the DZO's/S+TA's who are trying to do the right thing, but leaves it up to them (and the individual jumper.)

This, of course, will do the least of all the proposals to prevent canopy fatalities, since it's optional. But as far as I can tell removes the primary objection which is that it restricts people's freedoms. It also gets education to people who need it, which is the really critical part of the the proposal.