Wingload BSR.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Someone who reaches the magic jump number but doesn't really have the ability.

That implies that once someone reaches the "magic jump number" they must downsize. That's like thinking that once someone reaches 200 jumps, they MUST don a wingsuit (shit, I better hurry, I'm 500 jumps behind!) or once they have 500 jumps they have to get a tandem rating... just because there's a BSR with minimums doesn't mean you have to do anything.

Vs. right now where you can jump any wingload you want once you have an A license ... regardless of ability or experience.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Someone who reaches the magic jump number but doesn't really have the ability.

That implies that once someone reaches the "magic jump number" they must downsize.

No is doesn't. It means someone who is a klutz but wants to downsize does so at the *magic* number regardless of skill level.

My suggestion is an evaluation of skill/ability instead of using jump number which is unrelated to skill and ability.

...

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

[billvon 2,400]

> No is doesn't. It means someone who is a klutz but wants to downsize
>does so at the *magic* number regardless of skill level.

Right. And right now, that same klutz downsizes even sooner. Hence the utility of even a jumps-based BSR. While having more jumps does not cure one of being a klutz, a klutz with less experience is more likely to kill himself than a klutz with more.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

you STILL have no valid data to support your assertion that jump numbers are meaningful in this context

On the same note, you have no data to support your assertion that the jump numbers are not meaningful in this context.

The truth is that I'm not sure the data exists anywhere. We could take coutnries that have instituted such a regulation, look at their fataility reports for serveral years before and after the reg went in to effect, and see what's what. However, like I stated before, there is no such data covering open canopy non-fatal incidents and near misses, two of the three the main issues I think a WL BSR would help to reduce (fatalities being the obvious third).

From a data standpoint, we appear to be at a stalemate, but in this case, I would take the fact that the countries who have adpoted such a regulation have maintained it for several years as an indication that the powers that be are happy with the results. You can bet that if they saw a negative effect, they would repeal it. Seeing as that is not the case, I take that as an endorsement.

Referencing my other post, where I stated the shortcomings of a test-out type situation, mainly that you cannot really test anyone for the worst case scenario without putting them in undue harm, and that canopies should be selected such that they are appropriate for the 'worst case scenario', I cannot see anyway that a test of skills could be devised that would serve the purpose intended here.

The huge advantage to the jump number based system is that it's universal. 100 jumps at your DZ is the same as 100 jumps at my DZ. There is no variation due to the personal preferences of the test administrator, or due to the conditions at the time of the test itself. This is the way you get a 'standard' that jumpers can expect at every DZ they go to. Their jump numbers are what they are, no matter where you go.

Given the continued use of a jump number based regulation in other countries, and the lack of a reliable and easy to implement option, the jump number based system is the most unbiased, easiest to implement option I've heard thus far. As such, it should not be 'just amazing' that I continue to support it.

As for the USPA, there are a dozen reasons why they haven't pulled their collective thumbs out of their asses and done something about this, and 11 1/2 of them are either political, self serving, or some other perversion of 'leadership' that I haven't even thought of.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

you STILL have no valid data to support your assertion that jump numbers are meaningful in this context

On the same note, you have no data to support your assertion that the jump numbers are not meaningful in this context.

.

The burden of proof is on those who wish to make the rule.

...

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

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

> No is doesn't. It means someone who is a klutz but wants to downsize
>does so at the *magic* number regardless of skill level.

Right. And right now, that same klutz downsizes even sooner. Hence the utility of even a jumps-based BSR. While having more jumps does not cure one of being a klutz, a klutz with less experience is more likely to kill himself than a klutz with more.

TO REPEAT:
"And just to make it clear to those who read into my post things that I haven't written: I am not opposed to a wingload BSR. I am opposed to a BSR based on jump numbers rather than ability."

I'm surprised you choose the easy path instead of the right path.

...

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

[chutem 0]

Quote

Quote

> No is doesn't. It means someone who is a klutz but wants to downsize
>does so at the *magic* number regardless of skill level.

Right. And right now, that same klutz downsizes even sooner. Hence the utility of even a jumps-based BSR. While having more jumps does not cure one of being a klutz, a klutz with less experience is more likely to kill himself than a klutz with more.

TO REPEAT:
"And just to make it clear to those who read into my post things that I haven't written: I am not opposed to a wingload BSR. I am opposed to a BSR based on jump numbers rather than ability."

I'm surprised you choose the easy path instead of the right path.

Would you be opposed to a BSR that imposes a minimum jump number and a test of ability?

James

[Inspired 0]

And while the debate rages on, can we at least all agree that it's time to start collecting some meaningful data? Why isn't this already being done?

[crotalus01 0]

Again I ask what would happen to people who currently exceed the WL if a BSR was passed? Would they be grandfathered in?
Also, if there was an opt-out (the S&TA could waiver a person based on observed skill), would it still be the same shitstorm it currently is on here when someone has been signed off to jump a canopy the majority of jumpers here disagree with based on jump numbers?
I personally have never jumped a canopy that was not specifically recommended to me by my instructors, but that does not seem to be good enough for the DZ.com crowd...

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[DSE 3]

Quote

And while the debate rages on, can we at least all agree that it's time to start collecting some meaningful data? Why isn't this already being done?

It's been "being done" for over a decade. The data is there. What is being done with the data and the fear-mongering on the part of the USPA administration are two different discussions.

I agree with a BSR coupled with a requirement to complete two levels (or even one) of a Proficiency Card.
NO ONE is harmed by such a program, but certainly bones and perhaps lives will be saved by such a program.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

So what is the downside?

The additional bureaucratic burden it imposes on everyone -- AND the associated liability ramifications of BSR lapses related thereto.

Many many winters ago, J. Scott Hamiton wrote an article in PARACHUTIST titled, as I recall, "Beware of Federales Bearng Gifts."

In it he wrote about a new FAA program called "Aviation Safety Reporting" or something like that. The FAA invited all aviators -- especially those in fringe aviation activities such as parachuting -- to submit reports to the FAA whenever there was an incident where another aviator encroached upon their safety. It sounded great; let the FAA know about encroachments, corrective actions can be taken, and everyone will be safer. Win-win.

J.Scott, however, being the high-speed lawyer that he was, pointed out that the FAA was essentially handing us a knife with which we would cut our own throats.

As I recall, he said something to the effect that the very act of documenting such incidents, even if every single time a non-jump aviator was at fault/responsible/guilty, the FAA, as part of admin or policy actions to improve safety, could "point to a stack of our own reports" as evidence of in the incompatibility of parachuting with other aviation activities.

So jumpers listened to J. Scott and the rest of the G.A. community listened to their lawyers, and that was the end of that.

A wingloading BSR means we're making a knife with which to cut our own throats not one way but two:

1) Not counting all the BS you'd have to go through to design the system and beta test it, even if you end up with something marginally legit the administrative burden it would add to DZ operations would be enough to affect already-thin profit margins.

2) As J. Scott pointed out above, the more stuff you document, the more ammo you pile up for lawyers and regulators -- and because the probabililty of administrative error is so high due to all the dynamic variables, every DZ would routinely be out of compliance by a little or a lot. All of this, of course, makes it much easier for the lawyers because they can, as J. Scott outlined, use our own rules and records to create a more favorable battlespace for their scumsucking client... you know, kinda like when lawyers glom onto underage jumpers and the issues associated with them signing waiver of liability contracts.

Kinda IRONIC, too, how some of the people squealing to reduce liability by banning all sub-age-of-majority customers are also among the loudest voices calling for a wing loading BSR that will increase liability.

And reduce profits.

And probably not accomplish its stated goal.

Which brings me to the fundamental silliness of a wing loading BSR:

1) It is based on the invalid premise that jump numbers are an accurate means by which to correlate acceptable wing loading.
2) This premise is invalid because our own data shows that most of the people killing themselves by bad piloting have way too many jumps to be affected by said BSR.
3) Therefore, said BSR would be much ado and added liability about nothing.

The only way to keep people from making so many pilot errors is to train them to be better pilots from the outset.

Check that: ...train them to BE pilots.

And the only way to do THAT is to quit training them to be "skydivers" until after they learn to be PILOTS.

All of our fundamental training revolves around FREEFALL, not parachuting, and our problem is not freefall - it's parachute piloting.

Freefall is something you can do more than once only because YOU ARE A PARACHUTIST.

It seems to logically follow that you should learn to become a PARACHUTIST before you start skydiving, or base jumping, or doing crew or swooping or whatever -- and becoming a PARACHUTIST means LEARNING HOW TO OPERATE, NAVIGATE AND FLY THE PARACHUTE.

THAT IS THE ROOT SKILL.

And it is the basic SURVIVAL SKILL.

Freefall, on the other hand, is a secondary activity and it is a FUN SKILL, not a survival skill, and it’s freefall-focused training that creates pilots who don’t know what they’re doing, don’t know what their parachutes are doing, don’t know what the air is doing -- whether they have 100 jumps or 10,000.

So babble all you want about wing loading BSRs, but ain't nothing gonna change until you address the root problem.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[davelepka 4]

Quote

It is based on the invalid premise that jump numbers are an accurate means by which to correlate acceptable wing loading

This premise is invalid because our own data shows that most of the people killing themselves by bad piloting have way too many jumps to be affected by said BSR.

The premise of the BSR would not be to suggest acceptable Wls, that's individual to each jumper, the BSR would limit the max WL for a given number of jumps.

For example, the pull altitude BSR is not suggesting everyone pull at 2k or 2.5, whatever the case may be. It's calling that the minimum pull altitude for a specific jumper. That BSR, by the way, entirely based on jump numbers (or more specifically, license held by the jumper aka jump numbers as each license has a min, required number of jumps).

If it would make everyone happy, go ahead and pin the BSR to licenses held, like the pull altitude BSR, although that makes the process all more cumbersome becasue you only four levels of canopy progression built in. Br making each step in 100 jump intervals, you give the most determined new jumpers to opportunity to downsize 5, 6, or 7 times before being 'cut loose'.

The premise is only invalid if you're tyring to avoid only openm canopy fatalities. There is no information regarding the number or nature of non-fatal open canopy incidents causing injury either to the principal jumper or posiibly another jumper as well, two catagories I would like to see experience a decline in activity.

Quote

The additional bureaucratic burden it imposes on everyone --

For what? Printing costs? How many copies of the SIM do they print each year? I'll cover the cost of one additional page in each of them for the first year. Seriously, send me a bill.

Drawing up a chart, and installing it into the SIM is not a costly undertaking, even including the red tape of making that happen.

Now the idea of some sort of test standard, that's another story. That's a monster of a job in every way possible. Just coming up with solid test criteria and a testing methodology is a project to itself. Figuring out how to, and who should administer the test, where, when and how much is another mountain to climb. Finally putting it into use widespread enough that every new jumper has easy and reasonable access to being tested, the thrid giant hurdle.

I know, why not whip out the WL BSR, get that in place, and work on the other thing in the meantime. What happens when five years goes by and we cycle through a generation of skydivers? We'll have AFF Is, TIs, coaches, swoopers, freeflyers, gold medal winners, and world champoins who all started skydiving post-BSR, and all see it and support it as the SOP on every DZ. It will be cool to do it the way the book says, because that's how everyone does it (except the old timers, and you see what kind of respect they get).

Quote

becoming a PARACHUTIST means LEARNING HOW TO OPERATE, NAVIGATE AND FLY THE PARACHUTE.

THAT IS THE ROOT SKILL.

Yes. Always has been, but being able to effectively train for that has never taken hold. No matter how hard you try, 90% of AFF training and the A license proficiency card is about freefall and freefall manuvers. You really only need one manuver, get stable. Get stable at pull time, and whatever happened in freefall is a non-issue. It's in the past, and it's time to go parachuting.

In the early 90s, z-po canopies and the fatality list managed to co-exist without each other. The canopies were new, and people were cautious (like newbies today should be). If you were on an F-111 190, and wanted to go Z-po, it was either a 190 z-po or maybe a 170. Keep in mind that the majority of guys on an F-111 190 were not big guys, maybe 200 out the door.

What you had was bigger canopies, something else on top of the fatality list, and no canopy control courses or real training of any kind. It was enough to let the people fly their big z-po canopies and learn as they go. Downsizing was not an issue, it was hardly a word at the DZ, let alone a commonplace term. Even when it happened, it was one size at time, and almsot everything was just plain sqaure anyway. Sabre 190 to Sabre 170 was a real step up in performance in those days.

We can bring those days back by limiting the sizes and models of canopies jumpers can choose from, and the speed at which they can downsize. Back then it was all we had, today it will be all they have access to. Different circumstance, same result.

People will learn. The type of jumper who would take advantage of one of today's canopy control courses will still take advantage of said course. It's going to be the same jumper, the type that would see value in such a course, the only difference would possibly be the wing over their head.

Jumpers who don't see value in a canopy control course, still won't see the value. What they will see, even if they follow the chart to the exact min jumps and max WL, is that if you jump a canopy at a reasonable loading 100 times, you will get pretty good with it. Ever notice the TIs who can finish their flare stroke and hand their toggle to a catcher who didn't have to take one step? Jump a big tandem canopy at >1.0 enought times and anyone can be an ace.

Then try jumping a slightly faster canopy 100 times, see how sharp you are with that one. You'll probably be able to match your performance on the bigger one within 20 or 30 jumps. By 50 jumps on the smaller one, you'll be even sharper then before, on a smaller, faster canopy. Repeat as desired.

See wherre this is going? Canopies can and will alwyas be tricky. Additional training will help, but how to effectively get that to EVERY jumper is proving to be an enormous task. If newer jumpers would maintain a reasonable WL for their experience (and not accordnig to them, they don't know and are naturally biased) and put at least 100 jumps between small downsizes, they will learn and adjust to their surroundings. By the time they are 'cut loose' they will have experience in jump numbers, and experience on different size canopies with a fair number of jumps on each. We hope they have deveolped an appropriate level of respect for parachutes and skydiviing in general, but if nothing else we know they have the muscle memory and 'seat time' it takes to fly 'any' parachute.

[chutem 0]

Quote

Again I ask what would happen to people who currently exceed the WL if a BSR was passed? Would they be grandfathered in?
Also, if there was an opt-out (the S&TA could waiver a person based on observed skill), would it still be the same shitstorm it currently is on here when someone has been signed off to jump a canopy the majority of jumpers here disagree with based on jump numbers?
I personally have never jumped a canopy that was not specifically recommended to me by my instructors, but that does not seem to be good enough for the DZ.com crowd...

I don't have a good answer to this. I will say that your 189 semi ellip. at 1.3 and 187 jumps does not worry me to much. A little aggressive for me but I'd still get on a load with you. It's the guy like the one at Davis on a crossfire 109 at about 1.6 and around 220 jumps who is swooping into non moving objects that I would not want myself or wife on the same load with. If "that guy" wants to do hop n pops so he is the only one landing I have no problem with him breaking himself.

Where do you draw the line? How do I know if I'm getting on the plane with "that guy"?

James

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Quote

> No is doesn't. It means someone who is a klutz but wants to downsize
>does so at the *magic* number regardless of skill level.

Right. And right now, that same klutz downsizes even sooner. Hence the utility of even a jumps-based BSR. While having more jumps does not cure one of being a klutz, a klutz with less experience is more likely to kill himself than a klutz with more.

TO REPEAT:
"And just to make it clear to those who read into my post things that I haven't written: I am not opposed to a wingload BSR. I am opposed to a BSR based on jump numbers rather than ability."

I'm surprised you choose the easy path instead of the right path.

Would you be opposed to a BSR that imposes a minimum jump number and a test of ability?

James

If they can prove they have the ability, a jump number requirement is irrelevant and superfluous.

...

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

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

It's the guy like the one at Davis on a crossfire 109 at about 1.6 and around 220 jumps who is swooping into non moving objects that I would not want myself or wife on the same load with.

Immaturity and poor judgment are unconnected with jump numbers.

...

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

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Again I ask what would happen to people who currently exceed the WL if a BSR was passed? Would they be grandfathered in?

Personally, if I was not grandfathered in - I would just ignore the BSR.

Edited to add: If one of the experienced guys on the DZ told me I was being a danger - either to myself or others - then I would certainly listen to that and do something about it, including changing canopy if that was the only answer. My point is that without re-enforcement from people on site, BSRs are just a pointless waste of paper.

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

~ CanuckInUSA

[chutem 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

> No is doesn't. It means someone who is a klutz but wants to downsize
>does so at the *magic* number regardless of skill level.

Right. And right now, that same klutz downsizes even sooner. Hence the utility of even a jumps-based BSR. While having more jumps does not cure one of being a klutz, a klutz with less experience is more likely to kill himself than a klutz with more.

TO REPEAT:
"And just to make it clear to those who read into my post things that I haven't written: I am not opposed to a wingload BSR. I am opposed to a BSR based on jump numbers rather than ability."

I'm surprised you choose the easy path instead of the right path.

Would you be opposed to a BSR that imposes a minimum jump number and a test of ability?

James

If they can prove they have the ability, a jump number requirement is irrelevant and superfluous.

How do you propose they prove they have the ability?

James

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

> No is doesn't. It means someone who is a klutz but wants to downsize
>does so at the *magic* number regardless of skill level.

Right. And right now, that same klutz downsizes even sooner. Hence the utility of even a jumps-based BSR. While having more jumps does not cure one of being a klutz, a klutz with less experience is more likely to kill himself than a klutz with more.

TO REPEAT:
"And just to make it clear to those who read into my post things that I haven't written: I am not opposed to a wingload BSR. I am opposed to a BSR based on jump numbers rather than ability."

I'm surprised you choose the easy path instead of the right path.

Would you be opposed to a BSR that imposes a minimum jump number and a test of ability?

James

If they can prove they have the ability, a jump number requirement is irrelevant and superfluous.

How do you propose they prove they have the ability?

James

Test.

Just like we ask candidates for a license, or a PRO rating, or a coach rating, or an instructor rating to prove they have the ability.

Just like we ask people who want to build bridges to prove they have the ability.

It's not exactly rocket science to devise tests of ability.

...

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

[chutem 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

> No is doesn't. It means someone who is a klutz but wants to downsize
>does so at the *magic* number regardless of skill level.

Right. And right now, that same klutz downsizes even sooner. Hence the utility of even a jumps-based BSR. While having more jumps does not cure one of being a klutz, a klutz with less experience is more likely to kill himself than a klutz with more.

TO REPEAT:
"And just to make it clear to those who read into my post things that I haven't written: I am not opposed to a wingload BSR. I am opposed to a BSR based on jump numbers rather than ability."

I'm surprised you choose the easy path instead of the right path.

Would you be opposed to a BSR that imposes a minimum jump number and a test of ability?

James

If they can prove they have the ability, a jump number requirement is irrelevant and superfluous.

How do you propose they prove they have the ability?

James

Test.

Just like we ask candidates for a license, or a PRO rating, or a coach rating, or an instructor rating to prove they have the ability.

Just like we ask people who want to build bridges to prove they have the ability.

It's not exactly rocket science to devise tests of ability.

Yes, most reading this understand you want to test these abilities. What tests do you propose? Billvon's checklist might be a good place to start, does there need to be more? If we are going to take experience out of the equation how will we test the ability to handle surprises in the pattern? How do you test if a person will be to focused on flying the canopy to be aware of what's going on around them? Experience does not rule out these problems, but it may figure in there somewhere.

James

[kallend 1,625]

I suggest you take a look at the "Wingload BSR Take 2" thread. There are a lot of ideas in there.

Almost ANY test of ability will be better than relying on a parameter (jump number) that after 7 years of trying, no-one has been able to correlate with the problem at hand.

...

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

I am opposed to a BSR based on jump numbers rather than ability

Yet you don't seem to be up in arms about repealing the pull limits that are pretty much only based on jump numbers.

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

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

I am opposed to a BSR based on jump numbers rather than ability

Yet you don't seem to be up in arms about repealing the pull limits that are pretty much only based on jump numbers.

You must have a different SIM than I do. Mine shows it based on license level. Licenses require demonstration of certain skills.

...

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

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

It is based on the invalid premise that jump numbers are an accurate means by which to correlate acceptable wing loading

This premise is invalid because our own data shows that most of the people killing themselves by bad piloting have way too many jumps to be affected by said BSR.

The premise of the BSR would not be to suggest acceptable Wls, that's individual to each jumper, the BSR would limit the max WL for a given number of jumps.

I say again: the basic premise is invalid because most of the people killing themselves under open canopies have more than enough jumps to "qualify" for unlimited wing loading -- according to your own proposal. So what is the point?

Quote

Quote

The additional bureaucratic burden it imposes on everyone --

For what? Printing costs? How many copies of the SIM do they print each year? I'll cover the cost of one additional page in each of them for the first year. Seriously, send me a bill.

Sigh... the burden is not on USPA for printing SIMs but on the DZs that now have to track every jumper's wing loading limits, which of course change weekly/monthly/yearly/whatever. Those are the "dynamic variables" to which I referred that not only add a poopload of extra admin to DZ ops but also increase the exposure to liability because, due to the aforementioned dynamic variables, most DZs will almost always be out of compliance a little or a lot and that means more ammo for lawyers preparing the battlespace for their scumbag clients.

Quote

Quote

becoming a PARACHUTIST means LEARNING HOW TO OPERATE, NAVIGATE AND FLY THE PARACHUTE.

THAT IS THE ROOT SKILL.

Yes. Always has been, but being able to effectively train for that has never taken hold. No matter how hard you try, 90% of AFF training and the A license proficiency card is about freefall and freefall manuvers. You really only need one manuver, get stable. Get stable at pull time, and whatever happened in freefall is a non-issue. It's in the past, and it's time to go parachuting.

Please address the fundamental flaw in our training system that focuses from the first jump on the FUN SKILLS OF FREEFALL -- extended freefall at that -- instead of focusing the SURVIVAL SKILLS OF LEARNING TO OPERATE, NAVIGATE AND FLY THE PARACHUTE.

A wing loading BSR is a bandaid on the severed artery that is our goofball training system which, unlike every other risk sport in the world, puts fun skill training ahead of survival skill training.

Quote

If newer jumpers would maintain a reasonable WL for their experience (and not accordnig to them, they don't know and are naturally biased) and put at least 100 jumps between small downsizes, they will learn and adjust to their surroundings. By the time they are 'cut loose' they will have experience in jump numbers, and experience on different size canopies with a fair number of jumps on each. We hope they have developed an appropriate level of respect for parachutes and skydiviing in general, but if nothing else we know they have the muscle memory and 'seat time' it takes to fly 'any' parachute.

"We hope?"

Hope is not a training method.

Everything you say in the above paragraph is just slopping a little Neosporin on the severed artery before you slap the bandaid on it.

Or consider this analogy: Demanding and discussing a wingloading BSR without fixing our broken training system is like trying to clean up the Gulf oil spill without capping the blown well.

Sisyphus might approve, but I can't think of anyone else...

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[billvon 2,400]

>Immaturity and poor judgment are unconnected with jump numbers.

Not really. You can be immature and have poor judgment no matter how many jumps you have. But no one, no matter how mature, wise, thoughtful or deliberate, can have good judgment concerning the risks of jumping high performance canopies if he only has one jump.

I'm all for testing abilities. But you also need a minimum level of experience to have the bare minimum experience in this sport to understand the risks you are taking. I am sure even you would not be OK putting a jumper with one jump on a Xaos27 98 loaded at 3:1 - no matter how well they did on a canopy simulator (or even on a Navigator.)

[robinheid 0]

Quote

... no one, no matter how mature, wise, thoughtful or deliberate, can have good judgment concerning the risks of jumping high performance canopies if he only has one jump.

I'm all for testing abilities. But you also need a minimum level of experience to have the bare minimum experience in this sport to understand the risks you are taking.

Huh?

I personally know many people who have never made a jump but who know, through their common sense and/or equivalent risk experience, that it's not a good idea to jump a really fast parachute on their second jump. In fact, I would venture to say that if you randomly polled 1,000 people who had never made a jump and another 1,000 who had made one jump, you would find that between 99.9 and 100 percent of them absolutely get it that jumping a really fast parachute on their second jump would be a bad idea.

I would also venture to say that if you specifically sought out 1,000 immature, foolish, thoughtless, impulsive people and asked them the same question, 99.9 or 100 percent of them would also get it that jumping a really fast parachute on their second jump would be a bad idea.

It's not rocket science; it's just basic physics: force = mass x acceleration -- and if you exceed the critical angle of attack while flying your parachute, your mass accelerates.

So, Bill, I really am curious: why do you insist on picking "experience" nits to absurdity and beyond... yet remain silent about the fatally flawed training system that produces so many open-parachute fatalities among jumpers whose "experience" would place them beyond the reach of every proposed wingloading BSR "solution" anyway?

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."