Wingload BSR take 2

[Samurai136 0]

I think it has very little to do with lack of education. The problem stems from making bad piloting decisions during a landing; even though skydivers have the education.

Ken

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[masher 1]

Isn't that a lack of education?

Wouldn't part of you canopy education include what to do if you get cut off at 20'? if you find yourself going downwind at 50'?

If you had more/better education then the things that you can do 'bad' by yourself are reduced, as you have been taught how to do more.


I think that makes sense....

--
Arching is overrated - Marlies

[FliegendeWolf 0]

I was wondering about the "one size" point myself. I will be flying a Triathlon 175 loaded at .9. Would one size down be a Spectre 170? a Triathlon 160? A Specrtre 150?

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[Ron 7]

Quote

I was wondering about the "one size" point myself. I will be flying a Triathlon 175 loaded at .9. Would one
size down be a Spectre 170? a Triathlon 160? A Specrtre 150?

Im not an S&TA, but I would say...

The Tri 160, or the Spectre 150 would be one size down.

This is where S&TA's earn their beer. Judgment calls.

Ron

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

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

Wouldn't part of you canopy education include what to do if you get cut off at 20'? if you find yourself going downwind at 50'?

This is covered in the SIM. You fly your parachute you don't just accidently fly a downwind landing. The pilot chooses to do so.

Quote

If you had more/better education then the things that you can do 'bad' by yourself are reduced, as you have been taught how to do more.

I think the relationship between the two is weak. Anyone can take a cooking course but a few bad choices/distractions cooking means you may have messed up the meal. The problem is the application of knowledge. Unfortunately, the learning process involves some amount of error making by the student/pilot. Skydivers will stop flying into the ground under perfectly good canopies when they choose to do so.

Ken

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[billvon 2,400]

>I think it has very little to do with lack of education. The problem
>stems from making bad piloting decisions during a landing . . .

I have to disagree here. The reason so many people turn too low and pound in when they get cut off is not that they decide "hey, I figure I'll pound in and it won't hurt" - it's because they don't know how to flat turn at low altitudes. If they did, they would be able to handle getting cut off a bit better.

Education is all about giving people more options so they _can_ make good decisions during landing. It doesn't guarantee they will make them, but it helps a great deal - it's the one thing that seems to help.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The problem is the application of knowledge. Unfortunately, the learning process involves some amount of error making by the student/pilot.

I think Bill's talking about more than just book learning. By education he means hands on training with exercises and practice drills.

Anyone can take a cooking course, and those who do will be less likely to make the bad decisions.

[sducoach 0]

Okay, I'm getting serious.

First, the idea of license equaling canopy skill level is a good start however, how do you believe canopy manufacturers will respond? Back when the Stiletto's came out I (we) had to send in copies of log books verify jump numbers and then, sign additional waivers from the dealer, and might have even been PD (old age, loss of ..........).

I am not sure about the S&TA waiver. As an S&TA I would not waiver anyone. Think about it. "Well J.E. why in the world did you waive the canopy requirements and then watch Johnny Boy kill himself with a "SLAM" ( Stupid Low Altitude Maneuver)?
Sorry, but at our DZ it would be the course or the license but, either is better than what we are doing now. Keep up the thoughts and let's see what shakes out. Brain Storms not Brain Farts.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[billvon 2,400]

>First, the idea of license equaling canopy skill level is a good start
>however, how do you believe canopy manufacturers will respond?

As stated, I would tend to think they'd have two reactions:

1. A positive one since their canopies will be involved in fewer fatalities

2. A negative one because they will sell a greater number of cheaper canopies and fewer higher priced canopies.

That's a good question though, because another way to make this happen would be organized (but voluntary) manufacturer compliance with a system like this. The simplest way for canopy manufacturers to deal with it, I think, would be to ask for proof of a canopy control class for any canopy over their "safe" loading. That's a pretty simple thing to get and to show. The good thing about that is that, for the most part, the manufacturers know a _lot_ about their canopies, what's a safe loading and what's not.

>I am not sure about the S&TA waiver. As an S&TA I would not waiver
> anyone. Think about it. "Well J.E. why in the world did you waive the
> canopy requirements and then watch Johnny Boy kill himself with
> a "SLAM" ( Stupid Low Altitude Maneuver)?

And that, to me, is exactly its value. One of the arguments against regulation has been "why can't the S+TA just ground people who are being unsafe; why do you need a bunch of rules to _force_ them to do their jobs?" I think there's a tendency for S+TA's to ground/take action only against people who are being blatantly unsafe. I know that's what I did - and at the first hint they might not be able to jump their canopy any more, they'd just head to Perris.

Having a system where the S+TA has to _agree_ with the jumper, rather than just not ground him, is a whole different story. If it were up to me I'd be very careful about who I gave that waiver to. If John LeBlanc or JC Coclasure showed up at the DZ, they'd get one, as would people who have proven they are capable (i.e. Adam at our DZ, who has 2000+ jumps on a 2:1 Velocity.)

Side question - as an S+TA, how many people have you grounded, or threatened with grounding unless they got a larger canopy?

[CJK 0]

After reading this thread I had quite a shock. I never actually added my equipment weight to my weight for wingload calculations.

So instead of being a +- 100 jump 1.2 wingloader I am actually a +-100 jump 1.44 wingloader!!!!!!!

I've done 20 jumps on my 170 so far with no problems.

Where do I go from here? I dont want to end up as another statistic.

[billvon 2,400]

>Where do I go from here? I dont want to end up as another statistic.

Canopy control class, as soon as possible. You can jump that loading safely, but you need to learn the details of how to flat turn, flare turn, land crosswind etc.

[CJK 0]

Well, we don't really have canopy schools here in SA. I' started practicing flat turns (or tried to ) on the 280's and kept at it as I progressed down to smaller canopies. Never heard of the flare turn though. Is this when you let up slightly on one toggle during a flare to turn? Crosswind landings are no problem (yet) as I've practiced those as well (about 5 delibirate CW landings). I avoid radical manouvers under 1000ft, but you can never account for accidents or stupidity of yourself or other skydivers .

Grounded?!?!?! Whadda ya mean I'm "GROUNDED"?!?!?!?!

[billvon 2,400]

>Well, we don't really have canopy schools here in SA.

You don't need a school; most instructors who jump HP canopies can teach you the basics.

>Is this when you let up slightly on one toggle during a flare to turn?

Basically. You turn a bit and then level the wing again. This does three things - first, it cures you of the habit of 'reaching out' to 'break your fall,' a very common cause of landing problems. Secondly, it gives you the ability to avoid the darting 5 year old on landing. Finally, if you ever do find yourself landing crosswind on a very windy day, you can turn back into the wind a bit before touching down.

[Michele 1]

CJK said

Quote

So instead of being a +- 100 jump 1.2 wingloader I am actually a +-100 jump 1.44 wingloader!!!!!!!

I've done 20 jumps on my 170 so far with no problems

Billvon replied (amongst another comment)

Quote

You can jump that loading safely

I'm sorry to interrupt, and CJK, commend you mightily for trying to not be a statistic...

But, Bill...that comment flies directly into the face of everything you've said in the last few weeks about "safe" W/L, your BSR proposal, etc. I don't want to poke at you, Bill, but according to you in many different places, in your opinion and based on the way you've read the stats, that wing loading is dangerous. How can you say one, and in the next post, totally opposite positioning? I don't understand...


I just wanted to point that out to you.

CJK, what I would suggest is realize that just because you stood it up doesn't mean it was "good" (I stand up more than 1/2 of mine, and it's not "good" - there's always about 80 million things I've done wrong which need to be corrected...)

If there is not a canopy control school, then find someone you have a serious rapport with, someone who will teach you the basics all over again. Do a bunch of high alti Hop and Pops, and really really really work flat, braked, and flare turns. Run scenarios through your head, and determine what you will do...for instance, you and a brand new jumper are at 75 feet up, both on final, one of you has screwed up, and you are facing each other. What will you do? How long will it take to a)decide and b)perform? How many feet will it eat to do a flat turn? A braked turn?

Further, go to the Performance Designs website, and read everything there about canopy control. And then read it again, and again, and again.Performance Designs Education page

And be safe. Get the education, find someone you know and trust, and let them know you want to learn. Buy them a few j/t, or some beer...and get the isntruction from someone who knows more than you about it.

And thanks for being strong enough to admit your mistake, and to take measures to address them. Set the example, and be safe!

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[rhino 0]

Quote

Wouldn't part of you canopy education include what to do if you get cut off at 20'? if you find yourself going downwind at 50'?

If you ever find yourself in this situation it is your fault and no one elses.

You shouldn't have been in the situation where you could have been cut off anyways.

You have to fly your canopy like everyone is out to cut you off. Like everyone wants to take you out of the sky. Fly defensively or don't fly at all.

Rhino

[sducoach 0]

Bill,

As an S&TA I cannot ground a skydiver or make them jump a larger canopy however, at our DZ the DZO and I work together very well and are very strict concerning unsafe behavior in all aspects of the DZ. AND we have through discussion with each other and with jumpers, not allowed jumpers to fly canopies that are above their ability. In most cases it was a jumper wanting to down size without the experience to do so. I offer and teach canopy flight and encourage them to do so under their current canopy before they make a change. In some cases the go to the other DZ. In most cases they agree after our discussions.

James 4:8

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

I have to disagree here. The reason so many people turn too low and pound in when they get cut off is not that they decide "hey, I figure I'll pound in and it won't hurt" - it's because they don't know how to flat turn at low altitudes. If they did, they would be able to handle getting cut off a bit better.

So the problem isn't the pilots who cut off inexperienced poorly trained pilots, it's that the inexperienced poorly trained pilots on wingloading X can't 'handle' it? Come on. We all know the low man has the right of way.

I think the solution to the problem requires the manufacturers to take more responsibility for their product and not the USPA writing new rules.

Ken

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[phoenixlpr 0]

I agree. If someone is violating one or more rule he/she may violate the nextone too.

IMHO skydiving can be safe with the current set of rules.

Safe landings.

[Ron 7]

Quote

I'm sorry to interrupt, and CJK, commend you mightily for trying to not be a statistic...

But, Bill...that comment flies directly into the face of everything you've said in the last few weeks about
"safe" W/L, your BSR proposal, etc. I don't want to poke at you, Bill, but according to you in many different
places, in your opinion and based on the way you've read the stats, that wing loading is dangerous. How
can you say one, and in the next post, totally opposite positioning? I don't understand...

He can jump that loading safely...as can anyone. With the proper training, and a little luck.

Education can make you from becoming a statistic. But with out the education...you much larger chance of becoming a human sized crater at that WL/experience level.

Besides its not this guy that is the issue...He knows he needs to learn more. It is the guy that thinks he has it down already, and doens not listen to anyone. This guy needs the classes, but will not take them becasue they are not cool...The only thing we can do is not let him play with the high WL till he proves he can handle it. Make him take a class, test out, or wait.

And this guy from SA said it..."There are no classes here".

And there are I am sure 50% of the US DZ's don't have canopy classes either.

Ron

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

[billvon 2,400]

>Billvon replied (amongst another comment)

>>You can jump that loading safely

>But, Bill...that comment flies directly into the face of everything
>you've said in the last few weeks about "safe" W/L, your BSR
> proposal, etc.

You left out the most important part of my comment. It was that you can jump that loading safely, but you need to LEARN how to do it, via a canopy control course.

> I don't want to poke at you, Bill, but according to you in many
> different places, in your opinion and based on the way you've read
> the stats, that wing loading is dangerous . . .

I have never said that, Michele. I have said that jumpers who jump that loading without the skill to handle it - now that's dangerous. There will always be exceptional people who can do far more than others with the proper training; I have a good friend of mine who was on the 300-way with just under 400 jumps, primarily because she learned to do 20-way with one of the best in the business. That does not mean that anyone with 400 jumps can do a 300-way. Similarly, not everyone with 100 jumps can jump a 2 to 1 canopy. If they really want to do it, then great - take a canopy control course and be willing to spend weeks and many jumps learning how to jump it safely. But doing what we're doing now i.e. just buying the canopy, jumping it and hoping you don't die, isn't working very well.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

But doing what we're doing now i.e. just buying the canopy, jumping it and hoping you don't die, isn't working very well.

isnt it? honestly with the data we have (very little) how many people are or have been flying canopies "ahead of the curve" without incident? or with 'random' incidents that could have happened under any wingloading..

i guess the thrust of the question is how many jumpers would be /would have been affected if this BSR was already in effect? how many successful jumps would be 'illegal' under the new standard, and how does that compare to injury/fatality rates?

are there enough injuries that could have been conceivably prevented to justify "taking away" the canopy flights and time from everyone who can & did fly their canopy successfully "ahead of the curve"?

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

[billvon 2,400]

>are there enough injuries that could have been conceivably
> prevented to justify "taking away" the canopy flights and time from
> everyone who can & did fly their canopy successfully "ahead of the
> curve"?

The only people whose canopy flight is "taken away" are the sub 500 jump jumpers who are flying heavily loaded canopies AND refuse to take a canopy control course AND cannot fly their canopies well enough to get a waiver from the S+TA AND start after the grandfather period is over. These, BTW, are pretty much the people who need the protection.

[Zenister 0]

understand, however what i'm asking is how many people WOULD ( & would have affected before they were above the 500 jump #) this affect if it was enforced to everyone right now.

how many people would now be required to prove that they can land the canopies they have been (and did) all along, inorder to possibly save the brain trusts who couldnt or didnt learn without it being a requirement.

just looking at the numbers we have, we are not talking about a large number of fatalities and we dont have good injury numbers, i'm trying to quantify the "freedom' you'd curtail by 'inspecting' everyone whether they need it or not..

having an ST&A sign off isnt that large of an annoyance, but how many people would have had to have this done before? would the number of people asking affect who got signed off? how many people might be denied simply because of the volume of requests?? how much unnecessary (for those who can & did progress ahead of the curve without formal requirements) 'annoyance' and 'inconvenience' is a reduced fatality rate worth?

there are alot more statistics that really need some measure before we can find the best answer,.

I think we agree there is a problem, but it need better definition. Until you can answer the question about how many people are/have been successfully flying in the 'danger zone' you cant really say that a specific number of injuries is to many, or to few..

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

I think we agree there is a problem, but it need better definition. Until you can answer the question about how
many people are/have been successfully flying in the 'danger zone' you cant really say that a specific number of
injuries is to many, or to few..

How about the simple fact that the number of fatalities of a certain type in an experience group is growing, while the number of the same type of fatalities is much less in other experience groups?

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

[billvon 2,400]

>how many people would now be required to prove that they can land
> the canopies they have been (and did) all along, inorder to possibly
> save the brain trusts who couldnt or didnt learn without it being a
> requirement.

Not very many; the people already jumping small canopies are grandfathered for some amount of time (a year, say.) After that it would only be the people who _still_ haven't taken a CC course, proven to their S+TA that they can fly their current canopy, AND haven't gotten to 500 jumps yet. I would guess that would be a very small number.

>having an ST&A sign off isnt that large of an annoyance, but how
>many people would have had to have this done before?

Well, none. It's not a requirement now. Few people actually need waivers to the BSR's nowadays, outside of DZO's (for a small landing area etc.)

>how many people might be denied simply because of the volume of
>requests?

Interesting question. As it's not much harder to do six waivers as opposed to one, I wouldn't see volume as being a big issue. There is no set format for the waiver AFAIK; you could just make a list of names and send it in to USPA HQ.

>how much unnecessary (for those who can & did progress ahead of
> the curve without formal requirements) 'annoyance'
>and 'inconvenience' is a reduced fatality rate worth?

British rail sets the value of a life at 1.6 million dollars. USPA has 34,000 members. If we use those numbers, then it would be reasonable to ask people to pay 47 dollars worth of "annoyance" per person saved.

That's an absurd way to calculate it, though. I would say a small amount of annoyance to a small number of people would be worth saving a life. To save five, a little more. If the people we annoy the most are the people that desperately need to be regulated, then that's even better.

>there are alot more statistics that really need some measure before
> we can find the best answer,.

They do not, and will never, exist. If your argument is that you cannot put any new regulation in place until you calculate exactly how much annoyance will be placed on unspecified new jumpers - then I would have to think that you are interested only in quashing this proposal by any and all means possible. Ah well.