Wingload BSR.

[rhino 0]

damn.. lol

[ernokaikkonen 0]

Here is a post I made a while ago about accident statistics in Finland in 2002.

[billvon 2,396]

>Lets try to be realistic over here and not use exageration.

I am using an actual example. Someone with 39 jumps called Lisa and tried to buy a sub-100 sq ft canopy a few months back. That's the world we live in now.

[crazy 0]

Quote

Quote

Lets try to be realistic over here and not use exageration.

I am using an actual example. Someone with 39 jumps called Lisa and tried to buy a sub-100 sq ft canopy a few months back. That's the world we live in now.

Fine, there is an example! Assuming that the phone calls were not a troll, do you really think that this is a proper justification for a regulation? Be realistic and check in the fatality reports of the last 5 years, you won't find many 39 jumps wonders at a WL of 2.0. Hardly anything close to this blatant exageration.
Besides, even though there were proper justifications for a regulation (i don't deny this), the suggested solution (a table setting the max WL/number of jumps) is not efficient (except if you extend the regulation to 1000 jumps, with extreme limitations), it is a harsh and unfair constraint for a significant number of skydivers, and it doesn't promote any kind of training (except falsification of the logbook). Such a regulation might even lessen the motivation of the canopy pilots willing to improve their skills.
That regulation looks particularly arbitrary and inept when you compare with the regulation of other leisure (end even non leisure) activities around the world. There are many examples where the regulation reflects a realistic approximation of the risk, and match it with the individual ability to manage the risk.
Skydiving is not like driving cars. It is not a necessity. It is a risk that we are willing to take for our own enjoyment, so, please, before deciding new regulations, make sure that the increase in safety is worth the decrease of enjoyment (if you don't, then a total ban of skydiving is the best regulation).

--
Come
Skydive Asia

[sducoach 0]

Make the choice to educate and in doing so reduce (you will never eliminate) the problem or, accept the regulation by others.

See ya,

J.E.

James 4:8

[Hooknswoop 19]

Besides, even though there were proper justifications for a regulation (i don't deny this), the suggested solution (a table setting the max WL/number of jumps) is not efficient (except if you extend the regulation to 1000 jumps, with extreme limitations), it is a harsh and unfair constraint for a significant number of skydivers, and it doesn't promote any kind of training (except falsification of the logbook).

Quote

OK, you don't like the proposal, but you agree that something should be put in place. What do you suggest?

***Educate or Regulate, that is the decision.

Why 'or'? Why not both?

Hook

[billvon 2,396]

>Assuming that the phone calls were not a troll, do you really think that
> this is a proper justification for a regulation?

No, it's just an example of the culture we now have. The justification is the number of people killed under small canopies.

>Such a regulation might even lessen the motivation of the canopy
> pilots willing to improve their skills.

If there were a way to 'opt out' through canopy training it would do the opposite.

>before deciding new regulations, make sure that the increase in safety
> is worth the decrease of enjoyment.

I don't see any decrease in enjoyment beyond the # of jumps you need to go through a canopy control class. Do the class (and pass) and you can do whatever you want. The additional burden is a few jumps and some money; much less of a burden than the current ISP is to new jumpers (at least at those DZ's that implement it.)

>(if you don't, then a total ban of skydiving is the best regulation).

The refrain "why don't you just ban skydiving then" is getting pretty old. We have dozens of regulations that have kept this a safer sport, and kept a lot of people alive. None of them have led to 'banning skydiving.'

[crazy 0]

Quote

OK, you don't like the proposal, but you agree that something should be put in place. What do you suggest?

1) get a realistic evaluation of the actual risk. WL is not. A 0.1 lb/sqft difference on 2 different canopies are not representative of the actual risk. The flight characteristics are. If you don't have the flight characteristics, use the WL but excessively conservative (then the manufacturers will disclose the info).

2) make a realistic evaluation of the individual ability to manage the risk. Those who don't want to actively improve their skills can use the number of jumps but excessively conservatively (then they will get the motivation to get some training if they want to fly faster canopies). I'm talking about real restrictions there (500 jumps to fly above a WL of 1.3, 1000 to get a X-brace and 2000 to exceed a WL of 2.0).

Basically, i suggest canopy pilot licences. 4 or 5 different, matching 4 or 5 categories of canopies/WL. It's what you'll find in some places for paragliders, aircrafts, motorbikes, boats...

There are many ways to implement such a thing. For instance, open many different options and say that each removes 20-100 jumps from the default (drastic) requirements. A landing injury adds 50-500 jumps. Get a PRO rating you save 100 jumps. Attend a course you save 50 jumps. Win a swoop competition or an accuracy contest, you save 50 jumps. Coach a group of students on spoting, save 20 jumps...

The individual ability shouldn't be evaluated only on pilot skills. Obviously, the ability to spot and chose a landing area is as important as the ability to flare properly.

Last but not least, to improve the safety, a better understanding of the actual reasons of the accidents. There are quite a lot of other things, apart from WL, and checking carefully the accident reports would probably highlight the fact that there are many ways to prevent landing accidents (hangovers and lack of fitness cost a few femurs each year). But for this, we need proper reports for the accidents. The APF, for instance, logs every single incident, even the most usual malfunctions.

--
Come
Skydive Asia

[Ron 7]

Quote

One need not look to regulation to make a safety program become popular. Consider the treatment AODs
got in the 80's then look at the CYPRES. If you can design a canopy control progression system/class that
*works well*, eventually, taking it will become the norm.

What you are missing here is that old AAD's were at times dangerous...They could hurt/kill you...The CYPRES changed that...It is why AAD's are now cool...They were not reliable...now they are.

Canopy issues are different...The problem with Canopy control classes are that:
1. not all DZ's have them.
2. Even the USPA's ISP is not done by all DZ's.
3. Peer presure against them (see Michele's fine posts about this.)
4. Hot shots don't think they need them.."I don't need it, Im a natural."

I think they are great, but there are not enough, and the people that need them to survive, won't take them because they are not cool.

Ron

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

1) get a realistic evaluation of the actual risk. WL is not. A 0.1 lb/sqft difference on 2 different canopies
are not representative of the actual risk. The flight characteristics are. If you don't have the flight
characteristics, use the WL but excessively conservative (then the manufacturers will disclose the info).

I would rather have a guy on a Velocity at 1.1 than a Specter at 1.8.

Quote

2) make a realistic evaluation of the individual ability to manage the risk

At every DZ...Who would be qualified to make this judgment?

Quote

Basically, i suggest canopy pilot licences. 4 or 5 different, matching 4 or 5 categories of canopies/WL. It's
what you'll find in some places for paragliders, aircrafts, motorbikes, boats...

To much work..The USPA will not do it. You *could juat tie wing load to the current license structure...But this plan works as well, and it has more levels.


Ron

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

[mustard 0]

Quote

I sat back and assessed the danger points in skydiving. I put them in this order, and it may be wrong for some, but it's right for me...(there are others, such as altitude awareness...but where the injury risk is highest is here)
A. Parachute malfunctions/deployments
B. Landings
C. Exits
D. Freefall
I am working on these, in that particular order, to minimize my risk in skydiving. AFF left off at A....

I totally agree with you about these safety priorities. BTW, I read your post several times to try to take it all in, there is a lot there of value to all skydivers. My sense is that skydivers are changing, and quite quickly, it seems. When I began jumping, someone like you would probably have given up, since you seem to want to analyze and fix problems. There was nothing available then, there is now. You may have to look for it, but it's there.

AFF and the subsequent ISP are imperfect vehicles to teach someone everything they need to know about the above subjects. But they are a beginning! USPA is trying to fix a problem, and I am willing to take your concerns to the BOD in July. But remember I am only one of 22, although I am one of 6 on the Safety & Training Committee. The ISP coaches are teaching exits and some canopy control and hopefully making students safer than they were before when AFF was all skydivers had.

After discussing this issue at the DZ while we waited for the low clouds to clear, most skydivers I spoke to are against any kind of regulation or rule for the simple reason that each situation is unique. Why not have the S&TA and/or the DZO figure out what is appropriate wingloading for someone downsizing? That should be the S&TA's first priority, since that's where most people get hurt: on landing.

This means that the S&TA has to be there and be engaged in this issue. Aren't most? I sure hope the answer is yes.

***
DJan

[kallend 1,623]

If you are going to implement any system of regulation that requires an individual to get permission to do something (a "license" if you like) then the criterion should be demonstrated ability.

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.

...

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

[Ron 7]

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 can fly a tail wheel airplane....but the FAA will not let me till I get the endorsment. I need a high performance endorsment to fly a Bonanza...I had to get one before I could Solo it...Then the insurance guys went nuts when I tried to get insurance on it.

Skydiving does not have endorsments...or problems getting to fly pocket rockets....We need some sort of regulation. Education is not working, and peer pressure is not either.

Ron

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Why not
have the S&TA and/or the DZO figure out what is appropriate wingloading for someone downsizing?
That should be the S&TA's first priority, since that's where most people get hurt: on landing.

Simple answer? Its not happening.

I have seen S&TA's SELL a guy with 100 jumps a Stiletto...Why? He had one to sell, and they guy wanted it.

I have seen guys tell people that canopy control classes are a waste of money...

I have seen guys pound in time after time. And when I try to teach them, or warn them...I get told that I am stupid, and that I am just trying to be a "canopy Nazi" and hold them back. Some people just will not listen...does this mean they should die?

The USPA can't get the ISP implemented everywhere....What makes anyone think any other education program will get put into place and be used?

How many people need to die before the USPA does something about this issue?

Ron

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

[mustard 0]

Quote

The USPA can't get the ISP implemented everywhere....What makes anyone think any other education program will get put into place and be used?

How many people need to die before the USPA does something about this issue?

If the ISP can't be implemented everywhere, how are we ever going to come up with rules and regulations that everyone will follow? In my opinion, it will only lead to people falsifying jump numbers, resentment, and peole complaining about the heavy hand of the USPA.

The issue is not how many people need to die before the USPA does something. People will always push the envelope, especially young testosterone-driven males. If you set up a rule, it will give these guys a chance to get more creative in getting around it.

The canopies are getting smaller, faster, more extreme. How do you regulate good sense????

***
DJan

[Ron 7]

Quote

f the ISP can't be implemented everywhere, how are we ever going to come up with rules and regulations
that everyone will follow?

Something is better than sitting doing nothing.

Quote

In my opinion, it will only lead to people falsifying jump numbers, resentment, and
peole complaining about the heavy hand of the USPA.

People lie now about jump #'s.

Question? How much work would this take?
Answer the same amount that Pull Altitudes take.
Sometimes they are enforced, sometimes not.
But atleast there is something there to give S&TA's some backup when it comes to this issue.

Quote

The issue is not how many people need to die before the USPA does something. People will always push
the envelope, especially young testosterone-driven males. If you set up a rule, it will give these guys a
chance to get more creative in getting around it.

How did pull altitudes get put in?

Quote

The canopies are getting smaller, faster, more extreme. How do you regulate good sense????

You can't, but you CAN regulate canopy wingload. Just like pull altitudes, wind limits, who can do demos, who can jump with students, who can be instructors, who has to wear an AAD or RSL, who can do night jumps, ect. All of these were put into place to respond to a trend that was unsafe....this is such a trend.

Education is not working for the majority....Peer pressure is not working. In fact most times there is peer pressure NOT to go to canopy classes, and to downsize.

People keep saying that education is the answer...Hell, I agree. But it is not working. So regulation is need to to delay these young jumpers canopy choice till either they get the education, or the experience to not get hurt/killed learning.

Please, come up with a better plan...But don't just say that nothing can be done. Or sit and wait for someone else to do it.

The USPA should actually do something about this insted of just wishing it will go away.

What has the USPA done on this issue?

Ron

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

[mustard 0]

Quote

Education is not working for the majority....Peer pressure is not working. In fact most times there is peer pressure NOT to go to canopy classes, and to downsize.

Ron, I agree with you that there is tremendous pressure to downsize. I see it all the time. We don't start out flying kleenex-sized canopies. The old joke about someone asking what is the correct size canopy is to keep downsizing until you hurt yourself, then go up a size.

But I don't agree that education is not working. There are several problems here, as I see it. Here's the first one: canopies are being created that require more and more skill to fly. 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?

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.

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. You are saying we are at that point. 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.

Every heard the old story about the hundredth monkey? In the 1950s, a monkey on an island learned to wash sweet potatoes, and taught her offspring how to do it. Suppose that there were 99 monkeys that learned to wash their potatoes on a particular day. Then when the 100th monkey learned, a breakthrough happened. Once that monkey learned, monkeys on other islands, not in contact with the first ones, also began washing their sweet potatoes.

What this teaches us is that when we reach a certain critical mass with awareness, this new awareness is communicated to mind to mind. I believe this is what must happen in creating a new mindset for canopy piloting.

This happens through education, not regulation.

***
DJan

[billvon 2,396]

> 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?

Of course. But any system that works for 10% of the skydiving population (i.e. the percentage who regularly read this group) isn't a good solution to such a serious problem. Likewise, Elsinore has a canopy control class that's excellent. That doesn't solve the problem at Byron.

I agree that education is the solution. How do we get that education to the people who need it?

>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.

I agree; it would unneccesarily require some people to take canopy control courses who don't need to. However, we have this now. By the time I took my water training course, I had landed in the New River under a BASE canopy - twice. I didn't really need to jump in a pool after having landed in a fast-moving river under a real parachute. Yet I took it - and even learned a few things. I suspect a canopy training rule (i.e. Ron's rule with a way to 'opt out' through a course) would save a lot more people than a water training course.

>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. You are saying
> we are at that point. 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.

It has been my experience that skydivers simply cannot listen to certain things, and "you're not good enough to fly that canopy" is one of them. "You might forget to pull" is another one of them, and if that's why people bought AAD's, then almost no one would own an AAD. Since most people get them "in case someone knocks me out" we have widespread usage - that reasoning is more acceptable to skydivers than an admission of fallibility.

So let's take worst case. Canopy fatalities continue to rise. There continues to be resistance from many skydivers over mandatory canopy _anything._ What's the # of canopy fatalities a year where rules+regulations must be added? 50? 100? Because from what I've seen at the drop zone, that's where we're headed. The 35 jump guy who wants a Stiletto 97 used to be a joke. Now it's happening - and nowadays he can get an "old, safer" Stiletto 97 because he's not getting the more dangerous Velocity. Yet physics haven't changed, and he will die just as quickly as a jumper under a Stiletto 97 would have ten years back, when it was considered a deadly dangerous canopy.

Anyway, education can work, and indeed is about the only thing that will slow down the fatality rate. Regulation is one way to get them to get that education. I'm sure there are other ways, but I don't think hoping for a culture change will work quickly enough.

[Ron 7]

Quote

But I don't agree that education is not working. There are several problems here, as I see it. Here's the
first one: canopies are being created that require more and more skill to fly. 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?

For there to be education there has to be learning...From what I have seen, and the incident reports, people are not learning....When these canopies came out, guys with thousands of jumps were getting hurt. And thats becasue they were the only ones that could get them then. Now it is the new guys on them. The trend is since these guys can get them, they will. Education is working...for the people that look for it, and think they need it. The problem is it is not manditory or even possible for everyone to take these classes.

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.

Thats because most people with 300 jumps don't know better, and the cool thing to do is get the small canopy. And since they can get them, they will.

Quote

That rule does not take into account
the variations in learning and skill.

OK well I know how to pull low. I know what gear to use, and how to pack it. I have had 6 malfuctions, so I know how to do my emergancy procedures. So I think that I should be allowed to pull at 1200 feet. Who am I hurting? Only me if I am wrong. What buisness is it of the USPA to tell me where I can pull? You are stepping on my personal freedoms, I have pulled at 1200 feet several times, so I feel for ME it is safe. So are you going to waiver the BSR's for me?

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. You are saying we
are at that point. But there is a huge number of your follow skydivers that feel this is a wrong approach.

A large number of those that are pissed, are under 500 jumps.

The same thing was said about minumum pull hights...I bet lots of people were upset at them when they came out...same thing here.

Quote

USPA won't be able to make the changes as fast as educating jumpers about the risks they are taking will.

I disagree, you could have a BSR by next year....To iplement a nationwide canopy program at ALL DZ's would take years...And then just like the ISP, it will be fought, and not followed.


Ron

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

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

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?

Sorry DJan, often times on these forums we are preaching to the choir. It's the poeple who do not read these forums regulalry other than Talk Back that scare me. They are the ones that need educating. And how will that be done? We can't make them read DZ.com. But we can make them take an education course on any new canopy they go to.

Chris

[Zenister 0]

Quote

For there to be education there has to be learning...From what I have seen, and the incident reports, people are not learning........ Education is working...for the people that look for it, and think they need it. The problem is it is not manditory or even possible for everyone to take these classes.

i still dont see this. How is it not possible? you cant walk up to the good canopy pilots at your DZ and ASK?? it doesnt have to be formal (none of mine were) you just walk up and ask..maybe you pay for their slot, but IME it was mostly free simply because i was interested and i actually ASKED Michele's experience aside (i'm shocked theres that much ignorance at one DZ but my experience has been the opposite) how many people who are interested in canopy control have asked a more experienced jumper and been told "no i wont help you??"

Quote

OK well I know how to pull low. I know what gear to use, and how to pack it. I have had 6 malfuctions, so I know how to do my emergancy procedures. So I think that I should be allowed to pull at 1200 feet. Who am I hurting? Only me if I am wrong. What buisness is it of the USPA to tell me where I can pull? You are stepping on my personal freedoms, I have pulled at 1200 feet several times, so I feel for ME it is safe. So are you going to waiver the BSR's for me?***

can we leave the straw man argument out of it? its not the same issue at all.

***A large number of those that are pissed, are under 500 jumps....

I disagree, you could have a BSR by next year...

so 2 years later when everyone who dies under a small canopy has 500+ jumps you'll be content? or will you scream "how many people have to die??" again and "only those under 1000 jumps are pissed"

[callous] sorry but i also dont agree we are to the point where ANY regulation is necessary in the first place, you still havent provided any data that suggests the number of deaths in a single year was more than a statistically spike. There are a lot more factors to any fatality than simple wingloading, but the data isnt there to analyse deeply so everyone in favor of regulation points at wingloading as if it were the ONLY contributing factor..currency anyone??

Yes the stupid, those driven by ego, those who will not listen, will not pay attention to your proposed BSR anyway any more than they pay attention to anything else anyone tries to tell them for their own benefit and if for some reason they couldnt get the micro napkin they wanted at 300 jumps, will go ahead and get it at 502 and STILL not listen and pound in. You know what? in skydiving ignorance IS painful, oh well thats more O2 for anyone who cares to learn..[/callous]

amazing how you can cite examples of 'bad' ST&A's and yet you expect them to follow and enforce a BSR they must not agree with in the first place if they are putting people under canopies at wingloadings you consider unsafe..why make further regulation at all if its not going to be enforced? if the current guidlines for instruction are not being enforced??

if you really want to change things change them at your DZ..talk to people about canopy control classes, offer some of your time to teach a jumper you think is at risk instead of just chewing them out, pick one day (or a whole weekend, how important is this to you??) a month where you'll jump with and give canopy control tips to anyone who asks, encourage everyone of your students to aggressively pursue canopy control after they are licensed, nothing has to be formally done if the people with the knowledge take the time to share it..change the culture by influence, not by coercion...

oh wait..thats to hard..might as well just pass a rule and be done with it...

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

[jlmiracle 7]

Here are all the variables that I could think of to come up with some way to BSR wingloading.

1. Jump number

2. Number of jumps in last 3mo, 6mo, 9mo, 12mo (lets face it, someone with 250 jumps over 1 year is probably more able of flying a smaller canopy than someone with 500 jumps over 10 years.)

3. DZ elevations - every dz would have to have a different wingloading chart. (my canopy flys alot faster at Perris than it does at my home dz.)

3a. Different elevations at different dzs will restrict where you can jump because of your canopy size unless you buy a canopy for every dz you are going to jump at.

4. Who is going to be responsible for figuring out on EVERY canopy out there, what the appropriate wingloading at every elevation and appropriate jump number to go with it.

5. MONEY - if we are going to educate skydivers someone wants to get paid, maybe not at every dropzone but at most. With the implementation of ISP the cost of learning to skydive is already twice what I paid, and now we want to REQUIRE a canopy class.

I don't like seeing people hurt themselves, even when its do to stupidity. Stupid people shouldn't skydive and I guess these twin bed sheets people are insisting on flying will start to weed out the really stupid and eventually we won't have to worry about it anymore. This sounds cold and insensative but that's my point of view.

There are no OLD and BOLD skydivers, and I don't expect there ever will be.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[Ron 7]

Quote

i still dont see this. How is it not possible? you cant walk up to the good canopy pilots at your DZ and ASK?? it
doesnt have to be formal (none of mine were) you just walk up and ask..maybe you pay for their slot, but IME it
was mostly free simply because i was interested and i actually ASKED Michele's experience aside (i'm shocked
theres that much ignorance at one DZ but my experience has been the opposite) how many people who are
interested in canopy control have asked a more experienced jumper and been told "no i wont help you??"

You think it might be possible that you only know a few DZ's where I have been to almost 50.....Not everywhere has the skill level as other places...deLand has a school...Zhills, Lake Wales, and ALL of the smaller DZ's here don't. So education has to be available. AND the people have to want it...Remember I guess you are better than the average guy...Of course everyone thinks that of themselves...Some don't know they need it..Others think they know it all.

Quote

can we leave the straw man argument out of it? its not the same issue at all.

It is the same thing...I think I can do something...the USPA does not..So they passed a BSR to prevent people who thought they knew better from getting killed. Same thing dude.
People bitched then, now they accept it. Same thing will happen here...People still pull low, but less than they did.

Quote

if you really want to change things change them at your DZ..talk to people about canopy control
classes, offer some of your time to teach a jumper you think is at risk instead of just chewing them out,
pick one day (or a whole weekend, how important is this to you??) a month where you'll jump with and
give canopy control tips to anyone who asks, encourage everyone of your students to aggressively
pursue canopy control after they are licensed, nothing has to be formally done if the people with the
knowledge take the time to share it..change the culture by influence, not by coercion...

Well it is clear you don't know me at all....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.

Maybe you should get around more...Not ment as a slam...Just open your mind past your personal experience,and DZ. Not everyone is you or at your DZ. Believe it or not some DZ's the Chief instructor has 1000 jumps...Mine had 500.

Ron

And like I said before...Feel free to come up with a training program and a plan to implement it in the whole USA....I will gladly do it...If it could work. It will not.

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

[mustard 0]

Quote

And how will that be done? We can't make them read DZ.com. But we can make them take an education course on any new canopy they go to.

Can we make them take it? People in the middle of the country won't have one for ages. We haven't been able to get the ISP in place in most places. One thing we don't want to do is cram in more rules that aren't followed.

I hear what all of you are saying. I'm not arguing that it's not broke, it is. How to fix it is what we are talking about. Ron, Billvon, all of you all agree. I agree. But how to do it is not simple, or we would have fixed it for all but the most incalcitrant.

I feel like I've stepped in a hornet's nest here. I want to help. I'm just not sure that a "wingload BSR" is the solution -- or any solution but just more problem.

***
DJan

[Ron 7]

Quote

Can we make them take it? People in the middle of the country won't have one for ages. We haven't been
able to get the ISP in place in most places. One thing we don't want to do is cram in more rules that aren't
followed.

And thats the problem with education...this and the fact that most people don't think they need it, or want to spend the money on it.

Quote

I feel like I've stepped in a hornet's nest here. I want to help. I'm just not sure that a "wingload BSR" is the
solution -- or any solution but just more problem.

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 the mean time this will help prevent people with 300 jumps from getting killed.

Not a bad thing.

Ron

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