Wingload BSR.

[Steel 0]

If your going to base your policy on strictly safety then there is something else missing from your formula. Fact is bigger guys can wingload heavier with the same degree of safety. Although he did not come right out and say this John Leblanc suggested this from a different angle years ago. But obviously we don't need John Leblanc to understand something that is so obvious. Atleast for me it is. I have jumped my 70 loaded @ 3.1 with 19 inch risers and I jumped it with 22 inch risers and I could tell the difference quite clearly there (with only 3 inches of more line). A heavier guy will be using a bigger canopy with longer lines for the same wingloading. Although his foward speed might be about the same, his dive from the same approach will be shorter and his canpy will respond less to the same turning inputs riser or toggle. This will make it safer for a 200 pound guy to load at 3.4 than for a 140 pound guy. My 62 does not twitch anywhere near what Luigi's 46 does but its loaded at practically the same weight. I don't think your BSR would take that into account, hence it wouldn't be fair.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Ron 7]

Quote

f your going to base your policy on strictly safety then there is something else missing from your formula.
Fact is bigger guys can wingload heavier with the same degree of safety.

So? How does this really matter? If it is safer...good.

Quote

I don't think your BSR would take that
into account, hence it wouldn't be fair.

I am not worried about fair...I am worried about safe.

Other countries don't get this detailed...I don't think it is needed.

remember not everyone is you.

Ron

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

[Zenister 0]

Quote

I back up my words with action..And I am not afraid to do something when I see an issue...I also don't care what people think of me when I do it...cool huh? I don't just sit and bitch about an issue..I do something..that is something a lot more people should do.

no i dont know you at all other than this forum and neither do you know me so lets not make this personal as its uninformative and useless to the discussion to get into such flame wars.)

so is your action whining for more regulation on the internet? or are you actually out there doing these things? did you offer to teach the last guy you chewed out for flying like an idiot or did you just give him your .02 and leave him thinking you were an ass?

(also not meant as a slam) but if your serious about stopping accidents there two routes..one leaves it up to a higher organization to pass rules that may or may not be enforced, the other involves people with the knowledge being proactive about sharing it..

Quote

come up with a training program ....If it could work. It will not

it would help if everyones minds stayed open

heres one i followed at around 60 jumps..

-me to a PST qualified competitor
"hey are you busy? mind jumping with me today and giving me some canopy control pointers?"
-PST competitor "sure..i wasnt planning on jumping today so can you cover my slots?"
-me "absolutely"

how hard is that?? why cant jumpers cant do that at their DZ? it doesnt have to be a Pro either, there are mentors everywhere, but if someone at a tiny cessna DZ is flying a canopy they shouldnt be (and there no one there to teach them) isnt it up to the local ST&A to step in?? it shouldnt be to hard to observe every jumper at smaller operations.

those that want the knowledge will seek it, those who do not(and are not lucky or cannot learn well on their own) will still pound in..the difference is with the propose BSR they will do it at 505 jumps vs 205, if they care about following the rules at all...

are you also going to lobby manufacturers to come with a standardized system of canopy measurement? I asked a few riggers this weekend and they thought it was funny..how exactly are you planning on determining wingloading when you cant accurately determine wing size from on canopy to another?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

[See the issue? Sometimes you have to do something...even if it is not perfect. If this delays them for a few years, then during this time maybe they will learn. With Bill's idea they could "test out". That would make them want to take the classes.

In most all cases its better to study any issue than to take misguided or ineffective half measures..even when peoples lives are at stake..after all we arent talking about a risk to the general public, where the uninformed could unknowingly die from something they thought was safe, we are talking about a sport everyone involved in KNOWS the risks because they signed a waiver saying they understand it before they start. Education is simply the smart thing to do, but you cant force everyone to be smart, no matter how honorable your intentions..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Ron 7]

Quote

so is your action whining for more regulation on the internet? or are you actually out there doing these things?
did you offer to teach the last guy you chewed out for flying like an idiot or did you just give him your .02 and
leave him thinking you were an ass?

Well I don't see what I am doing as "whining" just like you don't think you are "bitching" about your freedom.

So yes, I am always available to anyone that needs me...

I am doing something, you are just standing in the way.
And for what reason?

Quote

heres one i followed at around 60 jumps..

-me to a PST qualified competitor
"hey are you busy? mind jumping with me today and giving me some canopy control pointers?"
-PST competitor "sure..i wasnt planning on jumping today so can you cover my slots?"
-me "absolutely"

how hard is that?? why cant jumpers cant do that at their DZ? it doesnt have to be a Pro either, there are
mentors everywhere, but if someone at a tiny cessna DZ is flying a canopy they shouldnt be (and there no one
there to teach them) isnt it up to the local ST&A to step in?? it shouldnt be to hard to observe every jumper at
smaller operations.

Because they are not doing it.

Quote

are you also going to lobby manufacturers to come with a standardized system of canopy measurement? I
asked a few riggers this weekend and they thought it was funny..how exactly are you planning on determining
wingloading when you cant accurately determine wing size from on canopy to another?

I bet all the riggers know what size is which.

Like I said do something other than complain about those that are trying to do something good.

Quote

but if your serious about stopping accidents there two routes..one leaves it up to a
higher organization to pass rules that may or may not be enforced, the other involves people with the
knowledge being proactive about sharing it..

And one will reach everyone...The other will only reach the people that I can see...And only those that will listen.

Ron

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

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Like I said do something other than complain about those that are trying to do something good.

just to be clear, i have no problem with your goal. I think you are taking the low (and ultimately ineffective) road to reaching it.

Criticism is not complaining. I am pointing out why a simple wingloading based regulation is not the best answer. I am not standing in the way of anything but more useless and unenforcible regulation.

I believe you should always take the most effective action not the easiest. Even if it is more difficult and takes more time.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I don't have to fly that canopy if I don't want to, but if I want to, all I have to do is buy it. Something is wrong here, I hear what you're saying. But if education isn't working, why are we having this conversation? Isn't that education? Aren't you educating others who are reading your responses?

I've been trying to educate others who read what I type here for over two years and those who talked to me at work for over 6 years. I've been called old fashioned, a canopy nazi, too conservative and out of step with the times. I've given real world examples of jumpers who will never walk, much less jump, again and been told those people were just stupid.

I've talked to hundreds of new skydivers who are being told - by AFF instructors, DZO's and S&TA's - to buy canopies they'll load at 1.1 or higher when they can't predictably land a canopy loaded at less than 1.0 yet. I've sold countless complete rigs for people who never even made it to 300 jumps - shit happened and they couldn't land that 1.1 loading safely, they broke, no more skydiving for them.

If the advice to stay conservative and get advanced canopy control training isn't coming from someone the jumper knows and respects, it isn't going to get through. If that advice is contrary to what someone the jumper knows and respects says... it definitely isn't going to get through.

Quote

Second problem: people aren't using good sense about canopy downsizing. You are suggesting that we put a rule in place that will help to keep people from hurting themselves. That rule does not take into account the variations in learning and skill.

Derek's proposal does allow for variations in learning, skill, desire, and msl altitude. It even provides outs for jumpers like me who don't care to fly a fast canopy.

Quote

Third problem: USPA is like any other organization, it moves slowly when making changes. Rules and regulations are only added when it becomes obvious that something needs to be done.

Something needs to be done, and knowing how slowly USPA moves the sooner we start on it the better.

Quote

But there is a huge number of your follow skydivers that feel this is a wrong approach. USPA won't be able to make the changes as fast as educating jumpers about the risks they are taking will.

I'm sure many jumpers felt the same about pull altitude and wind speed limitations for licensed jumpers. How many lives have those BSR's saved over the years?

Educating people about the risks they are taking isn't working. Like a teenager who "forgets" birth control, it's the old "it won't happen to me" attitude. Give the instructors, S&TA's and gear dealers of the US some guidance, a piece of paper they can point to that says it's not okay for someone with 100 jumps to be flying a 1.5 wingloading when that hundred jump wonder starts flashing the dollar bills around.

[diverdriver 5]

DJan, what it will take is people standing up and saying this is the line. This far. No farther. Not for now. Why in the world did we ever come up with licenses in the first place? Why not just an A license? Ahhhh!!! Because people realised that there needed to be graduated progression. And USPA has done fine following that program to this point. Some now think those jump numbers per license need to be increased. This can't be static. They have to evolve. But just saying USPA can't get anything done so don't go that way is a bad thing in my view. That's why we elected you people. Make it happen.

The ISP was a good idea but it got watered down in my opinion. It didn't need to. And I think that's why so many don't accept it. AFF wasn't enough. So others developed programs to fill in the gaps. The ISP was supposed to flesh out our old programs into a modern program. But too many old timers stuck their fingers in it.

Times change. Life is not static. USPA has to act to keep up and by listening to what the membership wants is how they can stay in a leadership role. Otherwise it will be deemed irrelivant. If people couldn't handle regulation then we wouldn't have any instructor ratings, or JM ratings, or IE ratings, or tandem ratings with [gasp] a probationary period. Our current system shows that we can tollerate graduated progression in our skydiving careers. This is NOT that far of a stretch. Setting the wingloading progression points will be the hard debate in my opinion. And then again, it could get so watered down that USPA will not have a leadership role at all. I hope they will act and address this issue in real terms and not the lip service I've seen in the past few years.

Chris Schindler

[billvon 2,400]

>Fact is bigger guys can wingload heavier with the same degree of
>safety.

I disagree. I _do_ agree that a bigger guy under a bigger canopy (i.e. with the same wingloading) will feel like his canopy is more of a dog. It will be flying about the same speed as a smaller person under the same loading; however, he has much more energy to dissipate if he hits too hard (1/2mv^2) and the square-cubed law says that his body isn't much stronger than the smaller person's. Put another way, a lighter person who hits the ground at the same speed as a heavier person will fare better, everything else being equal. This tends to even out the risk.

[Steel 0]

I see you really gave that some thought. There is definately a certain truth to that, as long as they both are in the same shape. Which only proves that the formula gets more complicated as you go along. Take me for instance 5'9" 200 pounds 8% bodyfat, I have no doubt the same screw up ending in the same impact will affect me less than some other guy who may be 5'9" weighing 200 pounds with 15% bodyfat (about average for an adult male). Now we have not even considered flying skills just different body types and again we end up in the same place everybody is different and policies based on jump numbers is just not fair.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Give the instructors, S&TA's and gear dealers of the US some guidance, a piece of paper they can point to that says it's not okay for someone with 100 jumps to be flying a 1.5 wingloading when that hundred jump wonder starts flashing the dollar bills around.

You know the sign that says we card anyone that looks to be under 30 for alchohol? I think that works pretty good in most cases. So the others that say education is the only thing we should focus on would think that just educating 16 year olds that alchohol is bad and you shouldn't drink and drive is all we should do? We shouldn't have a 18 year limit for smokes and 21 year limit for alchohol? Well, I happen to think those are good things in our society. Graduated priveledge is part of our society and I don't see it applying here as a bad thing.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[mustard 0]

I hope I don't get into too much trouble here at the office. I feel like an addict who cannot let this dang thing go! My work will suffer... but here goes! (plunge)

Quote

Some now think those jump numbers per license need to be increased. This can't be static. They have to evolve.

The licenses are being revised to align with the FAI. The world is indeed shrinking. There is plenty of resistance to change throughout our organization, jump numbers for licences too.

Quote

The ISP was a good idea but it got watered down in my opinion. It didn't need to. And I think that's why so many don't accept it. AFF wasn't enough. So others developed programs to fill in the gaps. The ISP was supposed to flesh out our old programs into a modern program. But too many old timers stuck their fingers in it.

Yes, it did get changed, even "watered down." It had to reflect *everyone's* concerns. Old timers jump too, old timers are on the BOD too. They represent a valid viewpoint in the organization. But we made a start! We actually got the ball rolling! This is HUGE.

Quote

Times change. Life is not static. USPA has to act to keep up and by listening to what the membership wants is how they can stay in a leadership role. Otherwise it will be deemed irrelivant.

Would you be willing to put it to a vote? How do you listen to the membership when we're talking about real live skydivers here who come from all walks of life, all ages, all kinds of emotional makeups? Does "majority rule"? USPA becoming irrelevant? Well, there are lots of skydivers who feel USPA already is. How to make it more relevant to everyone's issues? More rules?

I am all for guidelines. Do you think if USPA came up with a set of guidelines, NOT hard-and-fast you-gotta-do-this-or-else BSRs that it would save lives? Could we get started? I want to take something to the BOD that will be discussed in Committee.

We *are* going to be discussing this, never fear. Other people on the BOD have been asked to look at this issue. I want to help with guidelines that could be posted at DZs, sent to S&TAs, posted on the USPA website, sent to canopy manufacturers.

Whadda think?

***
DJan

[livendive 8]

Quote

I am not worried about fair...I am worried about safe.

Skydiving is not and never will be safe. It will always be dangerous. What we are talking about is how dangerous. What you deem "acceptably safe" is too safe for some and too risky for others. Imposing your idea of "safe" on others would certainly be unfair to some portion of us, and skydiving would still be dangerous for all of us.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I am all for guidelines. Do you think if USPA came up with a set of guidelines, NOT hard-and-fast you-gotta-do-this-or-else BSRs that it would save lives? Could we get started? I want to take something to the BOD that will be discussed in Committee.

Brain Germain's proposed a rough guideline based solely on jump numbers - it's been mentioned before in this thread.

imho guidelines without accompanying educational requirements aren't going to do the whole job, and will be fought tooth and nail by those who fear limits on their "freedom." They'll be more likely to accept wingloading/experience guidelines if there is an "alternate path" available that makes smaller canopies available to more aggressive jumpers at lower experience levels - an alternate path that stresses advanced training prior to flying advanced canopies. This is why I like Derek's proposal far more than one that provides only canopy sizing guidelines.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Is Ron’s proposal completely fair? No. If implemented it will cause some jumpers to jump at a lower wing loading than they are capable of for a while. What’s the harm in that? Err on the side of safety.

Is my proposal completely fair? No. Same deal. Are the minimum pull altitudes completely fair? No. Can Ron pull at 1900 feet regularly and less of a chance of bouncing than someone with 50 jumps pulling at 3,500 feet? Yes, so should we not have the minimum pull altitude BSR because it is unfair? Of course not. It makes sense and if Ron (and others) have to pull a bit higher than they are capable of, so be it. It just isn’t that big of a deal.

My proposal is more complicated and unwieldy. It is ‘fairer’, but more difficult to implement and use. If the max wing loading a jumper can have at sea level is 1.3:1 and they decide to go to CO and jump and are their limit and can’t jump at the higher landing altitude, is that so bad? If they are their limit and the altitude has the same effect as downsizing, then the altitude puts them in over their head, at an unfamiliar DZ. Seems like the landing altitude restriction would/could save jumpers from injury/death.

The point is not just the low turn fatalities, but the far more serious injuries. No BSR will end all landing accidents. But isn’t there a need to bring the number of serious injuries and fatalities down? What is in place right now (DZO’s, Instructors and S & TA’s making judgement calls) is not preventing the numerous injuries and fatalities. The current system is broken. Ron and I (spurred by Ron’s idea) have made proposals. Others have voiced their opinions and dispelled myths. There really was a less than 40 jump wonder looking to load a canopy at 1.86+:1. We cannot deny that there is a problem. Any solution that is implemented will not be perfect. It will stifle some jumpers and still not prevent others from hammering in, but the problem needs to be fixed, perfect solution or no.

Let’s agree that we need to fix the problem. If you don’t believe there is a problem, go back and re-read this thread and then the incidents forum.

DZO’s decide whether or not to use the ISP or AFP programs, and these decision can be based on financial considerations. They will also either follow or not follow a wing loading BSR based on financial considerations. Having a bunch of jumpers grounded because they bought too small of a canopy isn’t going to go over well with a DZO with a lease payment on the horizon. Does anyone not think that the ISP is better than AFF? But all DZ’s don’t use the ISP, Why?

Let’s take all the given ideas thrown in and come up with something that 51%+ of us can agree is a good idea and will help.

Hook

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

Is Ron’s proposal completely fair? No. If implemented it will cause some jumpers to jump at a lower wing loading than they are capable of for a while. What’s the harm in that? Err on the side of safety.

Is my proposal completely fair? No. Same deal. Are the minimum pull altitudes completely fair? No.

Hear hear. If we wait until we come up with the perfect system, then nothing will ever happen. Really. And we might come up with a system that needs to be changed as gear evolves -- 25 years ago, the thought of a first jump student under any square would have been considered a joke.

I think a good system would need to include both recommended minimums, and a way to go beyond them for the truly motivated and talented.

The way to go beyond could be either or any of a formal class (that you have to actually pass), a formal progression (canopy version of the A-card), or individual evaluation and sign-off by a S&TA/canopy control instructor.

Wendy W.

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)

[billvon 2,400]

>Let’s take all the given ideas thrown in and come up with something
>that 51%+ of us can agree is a good idea and will help.

I see it as a continuum. A list that starts from 100% accepted to 100% effective would be:

1. Do nothing. Talk about it a lot. Hope the culture changes. Hope more DZ's offer the ISP.

2. Spend effort (money, time, etc) on voluntary measures to help educate people. Have USPA sponsor canopy companies to give canopy control seminars. Integrate more canopy stuff into Safety Day, which would still be optional.

2.5 Have USPA sponsor companies that comply with point 2 (say, a free ad) but punish companies that do not (i.e. no ads until you comply.) This was done with BASE for a long time BTW.

3. Create a USPA HP canopy control coach, or add this to the current coach rating. Add a signoff (similar to water training) that gear retailers could use as a 'permission slip' to sell canopies, and DZO's could use if they so choose.

4. Create the same but add a few requirements to the ISP that concentrate on HP canopy flying.

5. Add some HP canopy control requirements to the D-license; as always jumpers could get a restricted D if they do not want to meet those requirements, and want to jump lighter wingloadings. Make the D license a requirement for jumping over X to 1 loadings.

6. Implement Ron's jumps/wingloading BSR, with the ability to 'opt out' through canopy training courses.

7. Mandatory canopy training to a USPA syllabus, and completion of a skill set exam, for everyone before they are allowed to load over 1.2 to 1.

1 will be accepted by everyone and do nothing. 7 will be protested by 80% of the jumpers out there but would very drastically reduce good-canopy injuries and fatalities. The ones in between would split the difference. So the question is probably - at what point will less than 50% not support the above? I would be willing to bet that over 50% would support 1, 2 and 2.5 3 would probably fly since there's still nothing mandatory.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Just tying it to jump numbers is absurd. We have all met folks with tons of jumps who are still clueless,
have poor judgement, or no situational awareness, and vice versa.
------------------

Yes John,

But I bet we both know people that could have soloed a plane at 2hrs.... And maybe gotten the Pilots license at 10. But the FAA wants 40.

I

Were you talking to my instructor? (Actually, I was signed off for solo at 3.5 hours)

...

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

[dreamsville 0]

I hadn't thought of this 'til now. Suppose Jesse has a wingload of 1.2, the regulated limit for his jump numbers, say 200. Over the summer he, for whatever reason, gains 50 lbs, placing him outside of his safety limit of 1.2. Being still well under 500 jumps (let's say he isn't even at 300 yet), is the rig he bought grandfathered in for him?
|

I don't drink during the day, so I don't know what it is about this airline. I keep falling out the door of the plane.

Harry, FB #4143

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

I hadn't thought of this 'til now. Suppose Jesse has a wingload of 1.2, recommended for his jump numbers, say 200. Over the summer he, for whatever reason, gains 50 lbs, placing him outside of his safety limit of 1.2. Being still well under 500 jumps (let's say he isn't even at 300 yet), is the rig he bought grandfathered in for him?
|

Ask Johny C whether he should have been grandfathered in to do a fat hook after a layoff and having gained some weight more than he had when he was really current. Having a guide sheet to go by makes it fairly easy for a manifest to say "You need to go talk to an instructor about this." S&TAs can't be everywhere all the time but everyone has to go through manifest.

Chris Schindler

[towerrat 0]

good call hook

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!

[oldnewbie 0]

Hi Diverdrive. I just wanted to comment about the *preaching to the choir* comment that you made. Maybe this is often true, but not always!! Reading the posts about this subject is education, and for some of us, it is a great education. Four months ago i was going back to the dropzone to jump where i took my lessons at (had 25 jumps). I was reading the posts from dropzone.com and the topic was canopy control lessons. I decided to take these lessons when i got to the dropzone. I KNEW BETTER FROM READING THESE POSTS

Zenister said that going to the dropzone and asking some of the better people for advice can work. Like Zenister, I asked around and got the name of a GREAT canopy control teacher from about 15 people at the dropzone. This person was also a PST qualified competitor. All i wanted to do was to learn how to land safely at a much smaller dropzone that would be my home dropzone. He sounded like many of YOU people. Keep the large canopy, and learn how to REALLY FLY IT.. It cost me 2 whole jump tickets over 2 days and 10 jumps!! (and yes , i tried to pay him, but he said no) He also said to jump this canopy for a hundred or two hundred jump and learn everything about it, you will be shocked at what you can do with it. So asking other people also works, sometimes!!

It was funny though, at this large dropzone with lots of great divers, most of the people that were *great* thought that canopy control lessons were a great idea!!

So the education idea CAN work, if the people (myself included) will listen and learn.

I'll leave the mandatory things to others. I personally don't mind the mandatory max wingloading one bit. But i will admit, it will not affect me since i won't be downsizing that much.

[Ron 7]

Then please come up with a better plan

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Were you talking to my instructor? (Actually, I was signed off for solo at 3.5 hours)

Nope but I went solo at 4.0 hrs....I had to wait till I had a medical in hand.

Ron

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

[Ron 7]

Can we agree that something needs to be done?

Ron

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