jdog 0 #51 February 3, 2004 QuoteQuote no one should ever be required to land a canopy using only rear risers unless they want to. Depending on the canopy, that is just asking for trouble. Are you having a laugh??? maybe landing on rear risers shouldn't be done just off student status or something, but it's a survival skill. It's very different landing with rear risers than just playing with them at 2 grand. This is something everyone should be able to do.... Will No, I am not having a laugh. Flaring only with rear risers results in a much higher stall speed. Depending on your wing loading and canopy this can result in a very hard landing. And if you are swooping, this can result in a landing that cannot possbily be run out or stood up. Why in the hell should someone be forced to make a crappy painful landing? This is a survival skill, but like an intentional cutaway you should not be forced to do this. What else do you want people to do? Land downwind? This is a survival skill, and a lot of fun, but it is dangerous. If you keep doing it you will eventually take a nasty tumble. Everyone does. How strong would the wind need to be in order to meet the USPA down wind test? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #52 February 3, 2004 Quotedetermine by testing???? So if someone with 150 jumps tries to jump a HP canopy and spanks in, they're obviously not ready for it?????? Sounds like Darwinism to me. No - that was not what was meant. You can always try to use your common sense.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #53 February 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote no one should ever be required to land a canopy using only rear risers unless they want to. Depending on the canopy, that is just asking for trouble. Are you having a laugh??? maybe landing on rear risers shouldn't be done just off student status or something, but it's a survival skill. It's very different landing with rear risers than just playing with them at 2 grand. This is something everyone should be able to do.... Will No, I am not having a laugh. Flaring only with rear risers results in a much higher stall speed. Depending on your wing loading and canopy this can result in a very hard landing. And if you are swooping, this can result in a landing that cannot possbily be run out or stood up. Why in the hell should someone be forced to make a crappy painful landing? This is a survival skill, but like an intentional cutaway you should not be forced to do this. What else do you want people to do? Land downwind? This is a survival skill, and a lot of fun, but it is dangerous. If you keep doing it you will eventually take a nasty tumble. Everyone does. How strong would the wind need to be in order to meet the USPA down wind test? I agree - what is the likelihood of a forced rear-riser landing? One in 5000 maybe. What is the likelihood if injury practising a rear-riser landing? 1 in 20, maybe. The risk/benefit ratio is way too high for this to make sense.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #54 February 3, 2004 How the hell did I get left out???!?!?!?!?!!?!!!"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyangel2 2 #55 February 3, 2004 Poor Ron, you were busy here You can't be expected to be every where It's kind of funny, that this is being discussed in two different forums. Good reading.May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #56 February 3, 2004 QuotePoor Ron, you were busy here You can't be expected to be every where It's kind of funny, that this is being discussed in two different forums. Good reading. Yes, with all my PW its amazing I find time to work."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tonyhathaway 0 #57 February 3, 2004 Once again, the ONE thing that really matters in skydiving-landing parachutes- people balk the most about learning. People pay $100 to jump with a fucking tennisball yet, won't do anything to help the situation of canopy problems. All that crap we do in freefall is a bonus and people pay loads of money for coaches to help with that. I guess this arguement is just like guns-you can have my parachute when you pry it from my cold dead hands. Right?!-TonyMy O.C.D. has me chasing a dream my A.D.D. won't let me catch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #58 February 3, 2004 Good one, Tony. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bbarnhouse 0 #59 February 3, 2004 It is interesting to me that much time is spent on the freefall portion of a skydive, yet 3/4 of that same skydive is under canopy. Given that, it would seem reasonable to strive to become as proficient at canopy piloting as one can. Just my .02 My hats off to all the folks that contributed to the article. B2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #60 February 3, 2004 QuoteAnd if you are swooping, this can result in a landing that cannot possbily be run out or stood up. I watched several people land, standing up, with only rear risers at the Eloy X-mas boogie. I've landed several times with only rear risers. Not a big deal. Bottom line- the current system that is supposed to educate jumpers and prevent them from jumping canopies they shouldn't be jumping doesn't work. The problem is getting worse. I do not see any other solution. "Educate, not regualte" Great. How? "Regulations are bad" Anarchy is worse. I hear lots of whining but no alternate solutions to the problem. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #61 February 4, 2004 QuoteThere is not a single dropzone in the state of Georgia so far as I can tell that is doing anything other than "old" seven-level AFF. Too bad. Last I was at SD Atlanta they were pretty much sticking to the ISP. Especially on not letting newbies jump with newbies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bbarnhouse 0 #62 February 4, 2004 The greenies are on the right track read this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brits17 0 #63 February 4, 2004 *clap clap* awesome letter guys, read it in my parachutist today, couldn't have said it better myself... even though i tried _______________________ aerialkinetics.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #64 February 4, 2004 Increasing regulation is inherently bad. Increasing regulation is exponentially more costly, and difficult to enforce. Browse through the Incidents forum and read some of the stories of young jumpers flying canopies beyond their control. In many, if not most cases, they were repeatedly warned about their actions and/or behavior. Yet they'll politely nod and carry on their merry way. When they femur they explain how they "really didn't think they could get hurt". I've seen amazing self-"regulation" just as much as I've heard about the crazy-irresponsible-progression. This issue isn't just wingloading either. A jumper who has jumped only square-9 cell-150 sq ft canopy switches to an elliptical 150 puts themselves in similar peril if they aren't a competent, inquisitive, knowledge seeking flier. Regulation will not fix that. "Wingloading" stays the same, but the flying characteristics are vastly different. Finally, let's say this leads to a new regulation with a set "date" of enforcement, how many people will strive to obtain equipment they aren't ready for in order to be grandfathered? Think it won't happen? How many applications for D-Licenses hit USPA before September last year for jumpers with over 200, but under 500 jumps?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwmike 0 #65 February 4, 2004 QuoteBillVon, Lisa, Chuck, Derek and Scott... Well done The problem is real, the proposed solution will not address the problem but the authors will have a new horse to ride for a while. BSBD, Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwmike 0 #66 February 4, 2004 QuoteHear hear! Regulation blows! Wether or not this 99% figure is correct, education is just as valid an answer as regulation... IMO, a much better one. I doubt very much, this 99% figure but I hear a lot of "I told him so" following incidents involving low experienced jumpers under highly loaded canopies. Don't rely on someone else to impose rules on our population... Just educate your own and don't let people act stupid and go in on your property. Let's not forget that any DZO has the right to deny any jumper at any time! If you tell someone they don't have the experience to fly a certain canopy yet, and they scoff at you and go buy it anyway, don't let 'em on your plane! The authors must this know this. The question remains, then, what was their purpose in submitting the letter? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #67 February 4, 2004 The three authors came up with their solution, and they're doing something about it. The question is, what is your solution - ie, how should your "education" work, and more importantly, what are YOU doing about it? _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #68 February 4, 2004 Excellent letter. I hope those at PASA take note. We've mirrored USPA in the past, and have an ISP (Intermediate Skills Program) etc. Hope this trend is followed. I'm tired of picking up pieces of shattered body (and ego) tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #69 February 4, 2004 Got My parachutist yesterday - Absolutly loved the article. Mad props to the greenies from Unstable....I'll buy you all a coke At WFFC or something!=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #70 February 4, 2004 QuoteThe three authors came up with their solution, and they're doing something about it. The question is, what is your solution - ie, how should your "education" work, and more importantly, what are YOU doing about it? _Am Doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing, Andy. It's not at all clear to me that the root problem has been correctly identified. I knew three people who died last year in canopy incidents. Not one of them fitted the category of individual targeted by this proposal.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timasch 0 #71 February 4, 2004 USPA is planning to address competency in reference to piloting smaller canopies. An item is on the quorum in the S & T Committee during the BOD meeting. It looks like they will address whether a PRO rating will be required to pilot some of the smaller Canopies. The Agenda is at http://www.uspa.org/news/notices.htm#wintermtg I would love to be there, to see if anyone gets hit during the arguing. ;-) Tim Aschmann Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #72 February 4, 2004 QuoteIt looks like they will address whether a PRO rating will be required to pilot some of the smaller Canopies. That would be pretty stupid since currently when you get a Pro rating you are "qualified" on the canopy you jump during your 10 accuracy jumps. So....are they going to suggest that I could go out and buy a sub 100 canopy and then TRY to land it on a target in my first 10 jumps on it? Not what a Pro rating is for...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timasch 0 #73 February 6, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt looks like they will address whether a PRO rating will be required to pilot some of the smaller Canopies. That would be pretty stupid since currently when you get a Pro rating you are "qualified" on the canopy you jump during your 10 accuracy jumps. So....are they going to suggest that I could go out and buy a sub 100 canopy and then TRY to land it on a target in my first 10 jumps on it? Not what a Pro rating is for...... Actually it looks like they are going to talk about PRO rating holders and whether they should have tighter rating when they use small canopies. Sounds like a good idea, might lower the bloodshed. IMHO, rocket canopies have no place on a demo. The spectators can't tell the differance and it gives the sport a bad name when (not if) they blow a landing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
