Do you think a canopy courses should be required?

[labrys 0]

Quote

It was nice to take the course in a organized manner that it was , but I didn't learn anything new.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then that course SUCKED! I know 3 canopy coaches and all 3 have said they sit in on other canopy courses to learn more. Not trying to be shity but i dout you know more (about capony piloting and general canopy knoledge) than any of those 3. So if Scott miller can still learn in someone elses course i beleive you or i can!

I've taken Scott's basic course twice and advanced (accuracy) once. In the classroom part of the first basic course I felt a little disappointed because I wasn't "learning" anything that hadn't already been taught to me during my initial training.

When we got out of the classroom and started flying, I was amazed at how much more meaningful the instruction was than I thought and how much more focused I was when all I was doing was thinking about my canopy.

In an ideal training program the ISP really does teach all these skills, or most of them. But it really did make a huge difference to me to spend a day reviewing and really, really thinking about it.

I guess if they're a natural then the instruction some people get with the ISP is enough. I think many more people benefit from taking a little time to focus.

Not saying I think it should be mandatory.

Edit:

Meant to say, it wasn't necessarily the course that sucked. Maybe the person taking it really did already have the things taught nailed. Or maybe they thought they did and weren't willing to listen.

Owned by Remi #?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

For those who voted "big boys and girls", I ask you:
That's what we have going now and with the current state of things, it's obvious that that approach is not working. Too many getting hurt under good canopies.
Most, by far and away, are choosing NOT to take any advanced instruction of canopy control and you see where it's leading, right?

Do we really know the status quo isn't working? 2-3 years ago, there was an obvious problem, and multiple heated threads everytime some lowtimer augered in on a wingloading 4/10th higher than recommended by Germain's chart. Lately...few threads, and few such fatal incidents. I looked at DZ's fatality listing for 2008 for North America and didn't see a single one. There were still some very experienced jumpers with low turn accidents, and the more troubling trend of collisions. But no obvious cases of newbies overloading.

Of course, injuries aren't visible in this. And frankly, work is killing me, I think I worked at least 20 Saturdays this year, so I'm not in tune with the locals. But it appears that people responded to the carnage earlier in the decade and are in fact more cautious on the subject.

Putting in a mandate will eventually result in more canopy coaches, but I'd prefer the coaches wanted to teach it, rather than cash in on the mandate. And with the smaller DZs having enough trouble with the availability of coaches and instructors, will this mandate help them at all, or give them even more trouble?

--
Out of curiousity, did everyone with a C really do 20 landings within 2m, or was it just pencil whipped by buddies once they got 200 jumps? My interest in fitting in the air space with everyone else often precludes an attempt at such precision, though I'll grant the lower frequency doesn't help either.

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

Meant to say, it wasn't necessarily the course that sucked. Maybe the person taking it really did already have the things taught nailed. Or maybe they thought they did and weren't willing to listen.

I also should have touched on that to. Maybe the person thought they already knew it and didn't pay close enought attention. But i dout he already knew it all.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

There were still some very experienced jumpers with low turn accidents, and the more troubling trend of collisions. But no obvious cases of newbies overloading.

This conversation is not limited to just the "newbies" (I prefer young jumpers). The reasons you indicate are the reasons why we need more education and training nowadays. We didn't need it when we were all flying T-10s. PLF training was the thing you needed.

Sorry, I like to think that canopy training would help prevent some of those "incidents".

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jacketsdb23 45]

Honestly I thought the course in general was good. The basic course in Elsinore taught braked turns, stalls, landing approach & flare techniques, and basic general canopy flight (i.e. smooth turns, don't be a toggle monkey, traffic, patterns, etc.). It was excellent to practice all of these things again. A few people in the course had NEVER done any of these.

The ideas presented in the course were not new to me. They were obviously new to a few people in the class, especially the braked turns. I think its a good idea to take the basic course before the advanced course. However, what was presented in the basic course had been presented to me previously in my first jump course. In my opinion one of the advantages of static line training (there are disadvantages, this is a different subject) is the focus is on canopy flight.

I hope I never stop learning. When I stop learning I'll take up bowling. My point was that canopy course are great and should be taken if jumpers are able to devote the resources to it. I don't believe a significant part of canopy collisions and landing fatalities would be removed with mandatory basic canopy courses.

Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

[billvon 2,435]

>I am well aware of that. But it is so minimal compared to what is learned in a course.

Agreed - but most students are not even getting that. That's a good place to start.

[peek 20]

jacketsdb23 wrote: "It was nice to take the course in a organized manner that it was, but I didn't learn anything new. I had learned it all in my Static Line course."

labrys wrote: "In the classroom part of the first basic course I felt a little disappointed because I wasn't "learning" anything that hadn't already been taught to me during my initial training."

Of course a little review doesn't hurt...

labrys wrote: "When we got out of the classroom and started flying, I was amazed ... how much more focused I was when all I was doing was thinking about my canopy."

I have had conversations with some of the well known canopy course instructors and asked them what the deal is, because what they are teaching is not overwhelmingly new or something the average skydiver has never heard.

They have pretty much told me the same thing, that when someone pays big bucks for a course they pay attention, and when the focus of the entire day is on canopy flight and not combined with freefall, that significant learning takes place.

Typical training in canopy flight is not necessarily lacking. Perhaps the time and attention devoted to it by the skydiver during an average day at the DZ is.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Typical training in canopy flight is not necessarily lacking. Perhaps the time and attention devoted to it by the skydiver during an average day at the DZ is.

I think you're very right there. My opinion based on the fact that I am, or hope to think was, very guilty.

Owned by Remi #?

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

I am not sold on a canopy COURSE for a variety of reasons. However, I do think that demonstration of specific intermediate level canopy skills for B license is a grand idea.

I would look at the USPA Canopy Piloting Proficiency Card and Bill Von Novack's downsizing checklist for some examples of skills to specify. The card can be found at:

http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Form_Canopy_Prof_Card_2007_04.pdf

Bill Von Novack's list can be found at:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=47

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[peek 20]

Quote

My opinion based on the fact that I am, or hope to think was, very guilty.

That was certainly not a criticism of you. I thought it was very helpful of you to have made those statements, because it is helping us get to the root of the problem, (which I don't think is lack of training or courses.)

[erdnarob 1]

Basically, with modern canopies performances and the high percentage of accidents occurring under a perfectly well deployed canopy (35%), we have no choice. We skydivers have to integrate in our culture that flying a modern canopy is like flying a glider and landing a canopy put the skydiver in the same situation than a pilot approaching the runway on short final. Some skydivers are fast to catch that reality but a lot of them have difficulties to integrate those concepts in their flight plan and landing preparation.
Courses (seminar or instruction) on canopy handling have to be offered as soon as possible and I would say for the very basics, included in the first jump course. As an instructor I have been told that my first jump course was too long because I was including some basic canopy handling knowledge such as : wind line, wind penetration check, left hand pattern, parts of the approach for landing (downwind, base and final legs), angle of descent and the way to evaluate where one will land and correct accordingly ...There is a philosophy saying that "If you explain too much the student will not remember. It is the art of instruction to explain things simply and that way giving the student a knowledge of what to do when the radio fails. It's a matter of survival.
Later on there should be more instruction about canopy handling especially for landing like : landing at angle with respect to the wind and how to do speed landing and surfing. Better to teach that before the jumper tried it by himself.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

Honestly I thought the course in general was good. The basic course in Elsinore taught braked turns, stalls, landing approach & flare techniques, and basic general canopy flight (i.e. smooth turns, don't be a toggle monkey, traffic, patterns, etc.). It was excellent to practice all of these things again. A few people in the course had NEVER done any of these.

The ideas presented in the course were not new to me. They were obviously new to a few people in the class, especially the braked turns. I think its a good idea to take the basic course before the advanced course. However, what was presented in the basic course had been presented to me previously in my first jump course.

I "Think" that the "basic "course i took was more detaled, based only on your descrition. The basic course i took was so much more!! When i said advanced course it was pretty much a swoop type course. The basic course i took could not have possiablly been tuaght in a FJC. So we must be comparing different types of courses.

Quote

In my opinion one of the advantages of static line training (there are disadvantages, this is a different subject) is the focus is on canopy flight.

I agree with you 100% I took AFF and i beleive that it is good for learning air skills better and Static line is better for canopy skills! In general.

Quote

I don't believe a significant part of canopy collisions and landing fatalities would be removed with mandatory basic canopy courses.

We will just have to disagre on this. I firmly beleive that a CC would help so much. Think about the person that has never turned close to the ground. Then one day someone cuts them off! Turn @ 50 Ft. Or a person that progresses very quiklly under canopy and doesn't spent time learning how to fly this canopy in most types opf conditions. Then one day is forced to go down wind (with 20 mph wind) cuase of FMD rule. If this type of person would have taken a CC they may have had a better chance of coming out alive!

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

>I am well aware of that. But it is so minimal compared to what is learned in a course.

Agreed - but most students are not even getting that. That's a good place to start.

I agree that most student dont get that! And they should. That is why i beleive that it should be a course that should be taught by an instuctor that is teaching just CC at that time and not other things. So if a student was taught the basic throght AFF etc. do you beleive that a CC should be manditory?

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

They have pretty much told me the same thing, that when someone pays big bucks for a course they pay attention, and when the focus of the entire day is on canopy flight and not combined with freefall, that significant learning takes place.

I agree. It is the same as people telling you when you get a new canopy to do some H&P's to focus on the canopy and not the dive or others in the air.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

I am not sold on a canopy COURSE for a variety of reasons.

What would your reasons be?

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

There were still some very experienced jumpers with low turn accidents, and the more troubling trend of collisions. But no obvious cases of newbies overloading.

This conversation is not limited to just the "newbies" (I prefer young jumpers). The reasons you indicate are the reasons why we need more education and training nowadays. We didn't need it when we were all flying T-10s. PLF training was the thing you needed.

Sorry, I like to think that canopy training would help prevent some of those "incidents".

I don't - these were people with 1600-5400 jumps, flying sub 100 canopies. I believe they were trained. But they're engaged in a high reward, high risk sport where a small error can be costly. Short of forcing them onto 150s, how would training have prevented it? Human error will always be around.

Since we're talking about Elsinore, the Scott Miller curriculum seems like a pretty good setup for the day, and worth doing, though I must say the cheap part of me sees $19 now for a HnP and thinks, why not do the freefall for just a few more bucks? The hard part about practice at Elsinore is the winds change so dramatically during the day, much more so than Hollister, so it's not really repeating the same conditions. Come in on a couple hot no wind landings and then when you think you're squared it away, you get a lot of wind where any partial flare will stop you.

But the insight that Brian G could give on landing approaches and canopy design made his two day course well worth it (I was still renting back then). He has done a lot of video analysis of canopy flight.

[JohanW 0]

Quote

.. $19 now for a HnP .. why not do the freefall for just a few more bucks? ..

Why would you be doing $19 HnP's when you can be doing $23 HnP's?

I sometimes refer to it, half-jokingly, as Recreational High Performance Canopy Relative Freeflying outside of the scope of a course but it could do with a snappier acronym. And, ATC permitting, you might just as well do it from full altitude. It's what BrianG had us do when we took his advanced course.

Johan.
I am. I think.

[dgermano 0]

Like most others have been saying, I think it would put an undue burden on smaller DZ operations. The upside of having safer pilots isn't even a guarantee either, since a person could just stop getting more licenses if it required canopy coaching and he/she doesn't care about canopy flight.

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

I have taken 2 canope courses. One when i had about 75 jumps (basic course), and the other when i had about 300 jumps (advanced course). First by Scott Miller, and secound by J.C. I beleive it should be done before B lic. I think A is a basic lic. and should stay that way.

I've only taken one canopy course. What saddens me is how often the canopy skills progression on the A-license proficiency card is just skipped over. I sometimes wonder if I would have completed all the tasks, if I wasn't such a meticulous bastard who likes to check off things on my 'to-do' list.

Point is, it's already there. The question is, how do we convince instructors to focus on it more?

Quote

Before anybody says that there are not enought instuctors...... If it became a requirement more quality "canopy pilots" would start to teach! Supply and demand would come into effect.

Fixed that for ya.

Seriously, though, look at the coach program. Supply and demand leads to more and more coaches, sure. But I wouldn't say that the coach program has done much to put quality coaches in the air...quite the opposite, actually.

Not saying it's a bad idea...just saying, X+Y doesn't necessarily equal Z in this case.

Signatures are the new black.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Like most others have been saying, I think it would put an undue burden on smaller DZ operations. The upside of having safer pilots isn't even a guarantee either, since a person could just stop getting more licenses if it required canopy coaching and he/she doesn't care about canopy flight.

Either you are in the training business or you aren't. The nuts and bolts of a canopy course for all our students/novices is something we are working on. In the meantime we bring Brian Germaine in once a year.
BTW We are a single Cessna DZ.

[Deisel 37]

Quote

Like most others have been saying, I think it would put an undue burden on smaller DZ operations. The upside of having safer pilots isn't even a guarantee either, since a person could just stop getting more licenses if it required canopy coaching and he/she doesn't care about canopy flight.

This was exactly my point about tying a canopy course to something else that people do care about. How about requiring a B (w/canopy course) for anything more than 4-way belly? No big ways, free flying, cameras, wingsuits, or anything else cool until you have had enough time to process everything that happens during a skydive beyond what the A liscense requires? But I also think that its very important that folks have the opportunity to have some fun immediately after completing AFF/A lisc. Then when some of the rush begins to settle down, begin work on a new skills progression.

Louis

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Like most others have been saying, I think it would put an undue burden on smaller DZ operations. The upside of having safer pilots isn't even a guarantee either, since a person could just stop getting more licenses if it required canopy coaching and he/she doesn't care about canopy flight.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This was exactly my point about tying a canopy course to something else that people do care about. How about requiring a B (w/canopy course) for anything more than 4-way belly? No big ways, free flying, cameras, wingsuits, or anything else cool until you have had enough time to process everything that happens during a skydive beyond what the A liscense requires? But I also think that its very important that folks have the opportunity to have some fun immediately after completing AFF/A lisc. Then when some of the rush begins to settle down, begin work on a new skills progression

The way to work this is to tie it into the B. By the time a jumper has gotten to the point where they are B qualified, they have shown that they are going to stick with skydiving for awhile, and they are also coming into the phase where they will be going from student type (larger) canopies into more mid-size sport type canopies.

As far as guys who will hang into an A just to avoid the canopy course, well, fuck them. Even having a mandatory course doesn't guarantee that people will actually pay attention, or adopt an interset in canopy control. It's the old 'you can lead a horse to water...' situation.

The idea is just to make sure that ongoing jumpers have had an exposure to correct and accurate information about some advanced concpets in canopy control and aerodynamic theory. What people choose to do with it afterwards is their choice.

As far as placing an 'undue' burden on a smaller DZ, I disagree. How many jumpers at a smaller DZ will be applying for a B in a given season? Because it's a smaller DZ, there will be fewer jumpers, and the need for fewer courses.

It's just like the live water training. That's a real pain in the ass, especially because you need a pool (generally off-site for most DZs) and some ratty old canopies to throw in there. Despite this, live water training remains a requirement.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As far as placing an 'undue' burden on a smaller DZ, I disagree. How many jumpers at a smaller DZ will be applying for a B in a given season? Because it's a smaller DZ, there will be fewer jumpers, and the need for fewer courses.

Is that supposed to be a plus? So now if they want a B (and to do night jumps), they need to wait 6 months till there are enough people needing it, or they need to take a road trip. Meanwhile, there is no effective pressure to create qualified instruction.

Yeah...this sounds like a wonderful plan.

[davelepka 4]

The biggest hurdle to this is going to be developing the cirriculum and qualifying the instructors. You don't need to be a super swooper to teach the course, you just need to have complete and accurate understanding of the course materials.

Scheduling the course is not going to be the hard part. We're talking about an hour or so of classroom time in total.

Just to be clear, I'm not behind the idea that this type of canopy course should involve actual jumps. That would require another level of instructor, and would be a logistical nightmare.

Back to the hour or so of calssroom time - anyone without a B is welcome, and anyone planning on ever getting a B would be welcome, you would not have to be B qualified to participate.

Look, everyone boasts how great their small DZs are, and how everyone is like a family. If you need to get your B on the quick, hit your family up for some help and see if the course instructor can meet you one on one to get it done. Hell, invite the guy over for dinner during the week and get it done that way.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Back to the hour or so of calssroom time

An hour? Seriously?

Covering what many have established to be general topics to be covered and explained, an hour doesn't give near enough time.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."