Wingload BSR take 2

[billvon 2,400]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, we grandfather everyone with a small canopy for a year, so no one will be forced to sell their Stiletto and buy a PD230.

[kallend 1,623]

This is a move in the right direction. It would be even better if the license requirements involved more than just accuracy.

...

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

[billvon 2,400]

>It would be even better if the license requirements involved more than just accuracy.

We have already added some canopy control stuff to the ISP, which is supposed to be completed before you get an A license. In addition, I'm not sure it's appropriate to require people to perform manuevers they feel may put them at risk for injury (i.e. HP canopy control manuevers) just to get a license. To jump a HP canopy, yes. But there are a lot of people out there who don't want to load over 1.3 to 1. We would have to make sure that whatever we added to the license structure would benefit all skydivers without unduly increasing the risks of actually getting the training.

[Scrumpot 1]

Aren't you still using arbitrary #'s with no particular canopy skills tied to 'em with this? You're just "labelling" it differently is all.

A license = X # of jumps , etc. (depending upon the "old" or the "new" standard I guess)...

Or does the new licensing progression/requirements now in of themselves incorporate demonstrated canopy skills with it now? I guess I am uneducated in that arena.

Further, what about the jumper who, has 100's or even 1,000's of jumps but doesn't care to get his C or D licenses? (or even his "B" for that matter -I personally have been jumping for years with nothing more than my "A") ---Does this mean I'd better trade back in my Safire or Stilletto for a 1-1 PD230?

It's late in the (work) day right now, and I was supposed to be OUTA HERE for a boogie, but the bad weather has taken a BITE out of that & I am tired , so maybe my comprehension is also low. Maybe I don't get it at all, but I don't see canopy wingload BSR restrictions being usefull as tagged to "optional" License holdings as the criteria at all.

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[billvon 2,400]

>Aren't you still using arbitrary #'s with no particular canopy skills tied to 'em with this?

No, the licenses have landing skills requirements already.

A license: A proficiency card which includes:
-landing within X degrees of wind heading
-Landing within X meters of target
-Rear riser turns
-Flat turns
-Braked approaches
-Front riser turns
-"Reverse" turns

B license:
-10 meters on 10 jumps
-Water landing training

C license:
-5 meters on 20 jumps

D license:
-2 meters on 25 jumps
-Two night jumps (therefore two low-visibility landings)

These are not ideal, but we can expand on them if we need to.

>Further, what about the jumper who, has 100's or even
>1,000's of jumps but doesn't care to get his C or D licenses?

No problem. Get the S+TA to waive the requirement, or take a canopy control class. Your choice, then you can jump whatever you want without the C or D.

>Does this mean I'd better trade back in my Safire or Stilletto for a 1
>-1 PD230?

No; the plan would also 'grandfather' old canopies so no one is inconvenienced.

[dterrick 0]

Hi Bill:

Interesting theory - very much like the class system for driver's licenses. The trick is what to do with all the 'old' license holders who are, essentially, unregulated. What do you do with a 200 jump 'D CoPper' flying a crossbraced 1.6:1 who can barely handle it? What about someone like me who cannot obtain a Canadian C for another 55 jumps if I want to fly a Sabre 170 at 1.25:1 and CAN handle it? Where does age and maturity fit into the proposal... or does it?


A true illustration: DZO has a Jonathan 170 in an old Warp III with a round reserve available on consignment. I demo'd it at about 100 jumps (1.23:1) and stood up 3 out of 3 landings in no, light, and cross winds. It reminded me of doing laps in a Formula Ford racing car after road-racing a street sedan. By now I'm sure I could pass the Billvon canopy tests with that main but I was neither flush with cash nor interested in the myriad of 'what-ifs' at that time. Now, at 146 jumps, I carve front riser aproaches on my ragged out Raven II (1:1) after plucking the risers like guitar strings from altitude (damn I need to do more pullups), safely recovering from stalled toggle spirals and backwards flight and balls of mush. Methinks CReW is in my future so I'll take a Tri or a Spectre at a reasonable wingloading as my next ride.

19 year old kid, '6 feet tall and bulletproof' with about 50 jumps (USPA 'B' ????) wraps it up on his first test jump and chops to the 24' loPo. Flew it a few more times before the DZO said 'time's up'. Said kid just made his Pie jump and still snivels rigs wherever he can. Recently he's jumped a Stiletto 150 (1.4:1) ... and survived.

Methinks ONE of us needs a ruling and the other doesn't. I suspect this example has a parallel at EVERY DZ in the world - the question really is,

"Why is common sense so uncommon" and when should the liberties granted to the individual be restricted to save us from the 'regulators' who have no idea what this is all about?


You're on the right track, Bill, and it's good that someone is working on the mounting problem. I'm going to visit the USPA website and find out what canopy skills are needed for each license level. the one area I'd suggest might need attention is the repeatability of those skills. I've done a few things 'once' ...

Dave

Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friend (Lennon/McCartney)

[billvon 2,400]

>Where does age and maturity fit into the proposal... or does it?

No system of rules can legislate wisdom or maturity. This simply keeps the very least experienced people off the canopies they can likely not handle without training until such time they get that training. There may be cases where the jumper is exceptional, and can handle the faster canopy. If that's the case, the jumper can either take a class or simply prove that he can handle the faster canopy to an S+TA and get a waiver.

>What about someone like me who cannot obtain a Canadian C for
> another 55 jumps if I want to fly a Sabre 170 at 1.25:1 and CAN handle it?

Show that skill to an S+TA and he will waive the restriction. If you can't convince him - a canopy control class will also get you off the restriction, and might teach you a thing or two in the process.

[skydive84 0]

What canopy are you suggesting these tests be taken on. One of a loading that they can currently jump or of the one the want to downsize to?

Adi

[dterrick 0]

AHA!

Really, then, the proposed BSR is much more of a useful tool for the A and B holders ... that is until you have a couple hundred jumps and a 'reasonable' body of experience to prove you're not only not a danger to yourself but are also not a danger to others. So far so good.

Perhaps an idea to consider is not so much an absolute wing loading number but a ban on downsizing more than one canopy size per license until the D? It's effectively the same thing for a bigger guy (Sabre 210 = 1:1, Sabre 190 - = 1.11:1, Sabre 170 = 1.24:1, Sabre 150 = 1.4:1 in my case.) but it more clearly illustrates the point that skipping a size is NOT a recommended thing. I can still scare myself under a Sabre 210 at altitude, thankyouverrymuch, if I fly the crap out of it. I can also fly a 170 gently and feel bored. I'm, um 'mature' enough to avoid even THINKING of the 150's, but some aren't.

The key in all of this seems to be to ensure that the first canopy owned is the CORRECT canopy, somewhere around 1:1 and preferably ZP. From my readings, most of the larger DZ's have good student equipment that is sized accordingly (something smaller/poorer DZ's don't necessarily have). If your CoP, like a PRO rating, had a canopy size specified, it would be easy to spot those who were abusing the system. An STA test could amend your existing CoP to reflect a smaller canopy size (yes, I'm sure the USPA could charge a processing fee) irrespective (in principle) of your jump numbers or license held.

Such a system would place a greater burden of responsability on the STAs, and DZO's because if someone hooked in under a canopy they weren't rated for there would be an audit trail to follow. If this little wrinkle could be ironed out the idea might just work.

Is that worth a thought, Bill?


Dave

Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friend (Lennon/McCartney)

[billvon 2,400]

> What canopy are you suggesting these tests be taken on.

Which tests?

If it's the S+TA's ability to waiver we're talking about, then it would be up to him. Personally I'd want to see the jumper land the canopy they _want_ to jump and do say a 20 degree turn in the flare, but each S+TA will be different.

If it's the canopy control course you're talking about, again, it's going to be up to the instructor. I'd expect that you'd want to use a canopy with a reasonable loading (above 1 to 1, perhaps even the more aggressive canopy they want to jump) but every student will be different.

[billvon 2,400]

> but a ban on downsizing more than one canopy size per license until the D?

I like that in principle, but I think it would be difficult to do that in practice.

"Hey, what are you doing jumping that 107 at 200 jumps?"

"My last canopy was a 120. Really. I jumped it in Canada. I just got this one when I got my C last week."

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I don't know. I'm a new D License skydiver and I don't think I'm ready to be flying a x-braced canopy loaded at 1.8 (or even higher).

I think education needs to be improved and enhanced in terms of content and availability and I think Brian Germain's canopy wing loading is a good guideline for the masses. But ultimately I think the DZOs and/or ST&As need to take an interest as to who is jumping what. I've seen people much more experienced (jump numbers) than me show less than ideal canopy landing skills and what about the person who is really serious about learning good canopy skills? Should they be penalized because they don't have certain jump numbers and/or a certain license type (before you flame me, I believe that only expert canopy pilots whould be flying highly loaded x-braced canopies).

One thing that has come to mind with all this BSR talk is the different skydiving environments out there in the world. We all talk here on the net as if we're jumping at the same DZ, but in fact we jump at different places that require different physical as well as mental skills. An example of what I mean is: Hardly anyone here in CO (which is not one of the skydiving hot beds) jumps an x-braced canopy. Why? Likely because of our altitudes and the fact that we know our landings are fast to begin with. But because of our fast landings, when we go to DZs near sea level, we are bored with our current canopies. At the same time, a large FL, CA, AZ for example has much more traffic and likely a different mindset when it comes to canopy selection. So I question if we're all talking apples here or are a few people talking oranges?

In summary, I still feel education needs to be improved and I really do think the DZOs and ST&A need to take more of an interest as to who is flying what and how competent are they flying their canopies.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[PhreeZone 15]

>I'm a new D License skydiver and I don't think I'm ready to be flying a x-braced canopy loaded at 1.8 (or even higher).


D requirements go up in about 60 days...

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[crazy 0]

Quote

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

Great move!
There are still a few important (IMO) objections and questions not adressed by your new suggestion. The main questions are:
- what is the objective? (the trivial "saving lives" is not enough; it should at least be quantified)
- do you have any evidence that the proposal is coherent with the objective? (applied to the fatalities in the USA in 2001, the proposal hardly saves any life)
- did you seriously consider the possibility of adverse effects? (each time something makes the sport safer, skydivers find new ways to kill themselves)

--
Come
Skydive Asia

[Ron 7]

I like the original "Germain Plan" for WL better.
It allows for a faster progression, but still with limits.

However, I like the rest of it. I think that the test could be getting a PRO rating before being allowed to downsize ONE size.
A class could allow you to downsize ONE size.
Or the S&TA could allow you to downsize ONE size.

Ron

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

[masher 1]

How do you define 'one size'?

What applies to the person that ordered a custom 142 sqft canopy?

From my limited experience, the 'standard' canopy sizes are 190, 170, 150, 135, 120, 110. (before and after that I don't really know...) Would you put a range around each of those? That sounds like the easiest solution to me, but I don't really know...

.

Just trying to help...

--
Arching is overrated - Marlies

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Aren't you still using arbitrary #'s with no particular canopy skills tied to 'em with this? You're just "labelling" it differently is all.

A license = X # of jumps , etc. (depending upon the "old" or the "new" standard I guess)...

Or does the new licensing progression/requirements now in of themselves incorporate demonstrated canopy skills with it now? I guess I am uneducated in that arena.

Further, what about the jumper who, has 100's or even 1,000's of jumps but doesn't care to get his C or D licenses? (or even his "B" for that matter -I personally have been jumping for years with nothing more than my "A") ---Does this mean I'd better trade back in my Safire or Stilletto for a 1-1 PD230?

It's late in the (work) day right now, and I was supposed to be OUTA HERE for a boogie, but the bad weather has taken a BITE out of that & I am tired , so maybe my comprehension is also low. Maybe I don't get it at all, but I don't see canopy wingload BSR restrictions being usefull as tagged to "optional" License holdings as the criteria at all.

A license is a permission to do something, not an award or merit badge. Tying permission to fly a HP canopy to a license is perfectly appropriate. If you want that permission, get the license. If you want to fly a twin engine airplane - get the license. I see no difference.

...

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

A license is a permission to do something, not an award or merit badge. Tying permission to fly a HP canopy
to a license is perfectly appropriate. If you want that permission, get the license. If you want to fly a twin
engine airplane - get the license. I see no difference.

Yes, but to fly a HP single engine all I needed was an endorsment...not another license.

Thats how I see the BSR I wrote...You could get signed off for a higher WL.

Ron

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

[Ron 7]

The next size down for the canopy you are jumping..

If you have a Sabre 150, and want a Safire 2 149...Its really the same size right? But if you want a Sabre 135, or Samuri 136...well its a step down. A 120 or 119 would be two steps.

This is where S&TA's come in...They could make these calls.

Ron

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

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

A license is a permission to do something, not an award or merit badge. Tying permission to fly a HP canopy to a license is perfectly appropriate. If you want that permission, get the license. If you want to fly a twin engine airplane - get the license. I see no difference.

I think we're definitely back on a better track.

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

[andy2 0]

[QUOTE]I don't know. I'm a new D License skydiver and I don't think I'm ready to be flying a x-braced canopy loaded at 1.8 (or even higher). [/QUOTE]

I think the point of this plan is that the person should behave such as you are behaving once they have their D. You are self regulating yourself, thats what everyone really wants. No one wants a bunch of rules.

---------------------------------------------
let my inspiration flow,
in token rhyme suggesting rhythm...

[billvon 2,400]

>- what is the objective? (the trivial "saving lives" is not enough; it should at least be quantified)

Reducing the number of fatalities caused by jumpers flying canopies they can not yet control. As a minimum, reverse the trend. Do this by steering the people who need the training (the people who want to jump very small canopies at low jump numbers, and who are certain of their skills) into courses or at least into more direct contact with S+TA's.

>applied to the fatalities in the USA in 2001, the proposal hardly saves any life)

I disagree. The objective of this proposal is not to keep people off canopies until they get to a certain # of jumps and/or demonstrate a certain amount of landing accuracy; it is primarily to steer certain people into canopy control courses and/or to their S+TA's to see if it's OK to jump the smaller canopy. Education is what will make the difference in fatalities. It would be difficult to come up with a rule that says "at 500 jumps you are automatically qualified to jump anything safely." The provisions to basically 'get out' of this requirement by taking a canopy control course is the heart of this proposal; the jump number thing is there primarily to make it less restrictive to experienced jumpers.

>did you seriously consider the possibility of adverse effects?

I think the primary adverse effect we will have to worry about is someone with 490 jumps thinking "just 10 more jumps until I can go from this Sabre 150 to that Velocity 69!" The reason I'm not that worried about this is that that's happening NOW, and it's happening earlier in their progression. I think the overall effect will be people downsizing later, at a point where they have more jumps. That does not mean they will qualified to jump the smaller canopy - but chances are they will be _more_ qualified.

>(each time something makes the sport safer, skydivers find new
>ways to kill themselves)

If you mean that we'll get canopy control deaths under control and then see deaths from wingsuit landings, I agree. The sport will continue to evolve no matter what we do.

If you mean that people will start pulling at 1000 feet because they can't jump their small canopies, I disagree with that. I don't believe that people will go out of their way to increase their risk if another aspect of their skydiving becomes safer.

[skreamer 1]

Quote

It would be even better if the license requirements involved more than just accuracy.

How about making five CReW jumps a compulsory requirement for the D license? I believe the Dutch do it already. Might prevent people from hooking themselves in trying to avoid another canopy on finals.

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

What canopy are you suggesting these tests be taken on. One of a loading that they can currently jump or of the one the want to downsize to?

Adi

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Demonstrate the following list of skills on your existing canopy. Then demonstrate the same list of skills on your newer, smaller, faster canopy. If you cannot demonstrate the following list of skills, then you have to practice under the supervision of a coach. yada, yada.

Folks, let's stop fixating on jump numbers.
We all know that counting jump numbers is a crude way of measuring skill levels.
The real issue is "the following list of skills."

[Ducky 0]

Darwin, D A R W I N Dah R Whiin Ddaaaarrwin.


kwak

Sometimes your the bug, sometimes your the windshield. Sometimes your the hammer sometimes your the nail. Question is Hun, Do you wanna get hammered or do you wanna get nailed?????