What do YOU think USPA should do?

[ccq 0]

Hi Folks-

A brief introduction: I'm Q (the other one), newly re-elected Pacific Regional Director. I live and jump in NorCal, primarily Byron. In my last term, I served on the Safety & Training Committee as well as Finance & Budget. I assume I will be serving on at least on S&T in my upcoming term.

In the wake of the two Eloy incidents from last weekend, we have all been reeling a bit. I knew Cliff and was pretty close with Tommy D. It has been a crappy week, as you may guess. As one of the many phases of grief, I have definitely had my angry moments. I'm primarily angry that these type of incidents keep happening; especially because they are happening to my friends!

The main reason I wanted to be on the BOD was to attack this problem. And I'm mad that I feel we haven't made much progress.

So, my question to you:
What, if anything, can the USPA realistically do to help stem the tide of open-canopy fatalities?

I'm not naive enough to believe there is any single solution, nor do I think the USPA can force the issue with a pile of regulations. I believe the BOD recognizes there is a problem. I certainly recognize there is. However, this a large and complex problem that is difficult to attack.

The pessimistic side of me believes that it is impossible to keep people from making stupid decisions and killing themselves. Maybe there is nothing USPA itself can do. It might have to be on the grassroots level within the membership.

On the optimistic side, there are a lot of smart people in the sport that care greatly about its future. There must be some actions that will help. We are all tired of burying our friends.

Thoughts?

--Q

-----
Chris "Q" Quaintance
ccqquaintance.com
D-23345

[sdctlc 0]

Quote

The pessimistic side of me believes that it is impossible to keep people from making stupid decisions and killing themselves. Maybe there is nothing USPA itself can do. It might have to be on the grassroots level within the membership.

I would love to think there is a simple fix to respond to the incidents last weekend. I watched the first incident and really wish I had not. After reading both threads in the incidents forum and thinking about the causes I dont think there is really anything that USPA can do.. You yourself said it above (bolded area) that it was a stupid mistake. Lets take it a step further and look to most previous open canopy incidents dont you think the same statment would hold true there as well and the same conclusion would apply.. To think about a regulation possibility, if the canopy load / jump experience chart that Briam Germain has been promoting and that I seem to recall the USPA was considering in one form or another was in place, it would not have made a hill of beans difference. Both (3 if you count Jay the injured non-fatal) involved last weekend had many thousand jumps worth of experience.

I dont see swooping going away... I dont see slow and fast canopies comming into a landing area as somthing that USPA can regulate.. Maybe at the DZ level but it has to be at the personal or individual level I am guessing.. Hopefully individual self restraint in certian conditions/environoments would help. I would love to believe that would happen but I saw in Eloy last weekend, right in the face of the incident, a closed main landing area and swoopers going big in the alternate area but only with more slow canopies around.. That is the prime example of the problem as I see it..

I would love to see something good come from last weekend and I hope that jumpers think and adjust.. That said, as a self regulating and individual sport, I dont know that USPA can lay down the law and make a fix it all BSR "guidline"

Scott C.

"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

[Gene03 0]

Fuck USPA, what do you think you the jumper, the DZO, the ST and A should and can do?
Think grassroots.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[BIGUN 1,053]

I "believe" it was the March 2006 Parachutist that stated, "Ten years ago, less than 3% of fatalities were under a fully functioning parachute, while in 2005 33% of fatalities were under a fully functioning parachute." [paraphrase] Not to mention the number of non-fatal shattered femurs, ankles, pelvic bones, vertebrae, etc. For almost the same amount of time, we've heard the chant, "Educate, don't regulate." Yet the most we've developed is a downsizing guideline.

1. The USPA requires specific basic canopy control sign-offs for the A license card to be completed to get the license. With the advanced aerodynamics and serobatic capabilities of the modern day canopy; would it be too ludicrous to suggest an advanced performance-oriented canopy course card to achieve the C license? I mean we're talking advanced aerobatics here, why wouldn't we have an educational path to demonstrate that level of proficiency?

2. Could we not include the manufacturers as part of the solution - no advanced canopy control class or "C" license in the USPA database = no sale. Would that not also give them "some" additional liability protection? The manufacturers could actually sponsor the courses (They sponsor 4-way teams, vRW teams, swoop teams, etc.,that look cool; why not sponsor an advanced canopy control team in the interest of safety and education?) and send qualified advanced canopy pilot Instructors to DZ's around the world to do the certification? That would not only assist in making the sport more safe, but be good PR for their product lines. They build them, they sell them; be a part of the solution.

We can continue the chant or ask the USPA and manufacturers to sit down and develop an educational path.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[dharma1976 0]

this really has to do with people being willing to mentor people and help them not pound themselves into the ground

this also requires good teaching ability which is not inherant within us all, but some of us are able to do it

the other thing is of course the issue of shit happens and sometimes we step in it

and you know what man....accidents will happen...not all of them are avoidable

most of us are reeling righ tnow cause of two fatalities in two days

we reeled the same way when the crosskeys incident occured....

some of us have become mroe aware since then

some of us have not

I wish you luck if you decide to attack this problem from the top as I feel that it really has to do with us finding ways for swoopers and non swoopers to coexist in one dropzone

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[jkm2500 0]

The sport of skydiving in inherently dangerous. It is a thrill-seeking activity, and is not done so that people can feel safe. If you want to feel safe buy a volvo, and drive in the slow lane. I don't jump from an airplane because I want to feel safe, I also don't rely on other people to "be safe". That is an unreasonable expectation. To believe that just because the USPA adds another section to the SIM that states there are certain things that need to be done in order for people to be safe is bordering on insanity.

It is my understanding that the people who died this past weekend at Eloy were experienced skydivers, with high jump numbers, who were current. They are responsible for their actions. They knew the risks involved with their decision to jump. If this is not the case, please enlighten me.

People have been dying in this sport since its inception. Just like people die driving their cars, riding motorcycles, hikng, camping, eating, etc...

If you are looking for a prevention measure, educate the young jumpers, educate the old jumpers, have safety briefings at the DZ prior to jumping, specify landing patterns to primary and alternate landing areas. IF the DZ is a large busy DZ segregate high performance canopy traffic so that they are not competing for airspace. But, most importantly, hold the individuals responsible for their actions. It is up to the individual to be responsible for their actions, not the community as a whole.

I don't like hearing about people in this sport dying. I have lost friends due to landing incidents. But more regulation IS NOT the answer. More regulations do not take into account those people who are going to make bad decisions.

Imagine how it would impact the sport if everybody that steps foot on the DZ has to do exactly the same thing until they have 100 jumps, or 500 jumps, or 1000 jumps. At what point in time is a person capable of making their own decision on how they want to enjoy their time in the sky? At what point in time are people responsible for making coherent decisions in how they set up to land? Or enter the landing pattern?

Mistakes are made, lets use the knowledge and experience that is gained from the mistakes to better the sport, not make it more confining. Lets use the incidents as a teaching tool, not as a method to push more regulation on a sport that is meant for people to explore themselves and their freedom. Regulation is not the answer.

A possible solution (not a neccesary solution) is to come up with a class similar to the comprehensive defensive driving courses that are availble. Teach people how to drive their canopies in traffic. Teach them how to be proficient with their canopy. Teach them what to do to avoid collisions, traffic mishaps, etc by being one step ahead of the game. In defensive driving it is up to me to make sure that I am not in an accident, and to look out all around me, plan ahead so that I can try to avoid a situation before it ever occurs. Rely on yourself so that you dont have to rely on others.

There have been boogies for years, and there hasnt been the overbearing need to create more regulations. Personal responsiblity is key. If a person is not experienced enough to jump at the boogie they should not get in the air. If a person is too hungover from the night before they should not get in the air. If a person is trying to swoop a little too hard, they should not be in the air. But, far be it from me to declare these ideals the next needed regulations. I will be up in the air looking for a way to avoid them on my way to the ground. If I cant, I know that I am taking part in a high risk sport. I know that there are other people that are taking part in the sport along with me. I know that there are people out there that I will not jump with because they dont have the same priorities that I do. But, I am responsible enough to know those things.

You cannot regulate responsibilty.

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[DBCOOPER 1]

There needs to be a BSR separating high performance landings areas from standard landing areas.
Let the locals figure out how to do it to match their geography.

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[tombuch 0]

This problem is not new, and neither is the sudden interest following a series of accidents. Our sport has been through this all before. As a 20+ year instructor, pilot, rigger, and former S&TA I have watched us deal with industry-wide equipment issues, aircraft issues, training issues, and more.

I believe solutions need to develop at the grassroots level and embraced by the local jumper community. Most DZO’s will not respond to USPA or to rules, but at least some of them will probably respond to customer concerns. The trick is getting individual jumpers to advocate for broad reform.

Unfortunately, individual jumpers don’t know what to ask for, or how to push their DZO’s for change. USPA could be a conduit for informational exchanges among jumpers and DZO’s. My suggestion is to produce an operations handbook for drop zones that deals with both broad and specific issues. The handbook should be available on the web so everybody in the sport begins at the same base level. We already have DZ’s with good policies. USPA would do well to gather the successful DZO’s together and use their knowledge as a starting point.

I’d also suggest a series of seminars to help explain issues to jumpers so they better understand risks and how to mitigate those risks. I think we already do this at some DZ’s for Safety Day, but I’d like it to be more comprehensive. If money was no object I’d have USPA create a traveling road show for boogies that would take a single consistent message to jumpers throughout the country. AOPA and the ASF do a great job of this, but it is really expensive, and probably not possible with a shrinking jumper population. However, some smaller scale variation could be supported by our national organization.

Thanks for your interest, and good luck in your term on the board.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[riggerrob 558]

USPA could be a conduit for informational exchanges among jumpers and DZO’s. My suggestion is to produce an operations handbook for drop zones ...

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

Yes!
... and publish key diagrams from that manual in Parachutist Magazine.
That will spread "best practices" quickly.
A few diagrams of "best practices" (i.e. separate landing patterns for different classes of canopies) would get the message across quickest.

Ideally - by this time next year - it will become as "uncool" to swoop the pea gravel bowl as it is to land Mantas in the swoop pond.

[kallend 1,623]

Send out an immediate, urgent safety bulletin to all DZOs and S&TAs informing them of the issue and asking that they implement a plan at their DZ to reduce the risk of this type of accident, and to send USPA a copy of their plan.

...

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

[aironscott 3]

Not a fucking thing.

Is USPA management so egotistical that they think that they actually have that much influence over the common jumper anyway? If so, good luck with that.

Aaron

“God Damn Mountain Dew MotherFuckers!”

[BIGUN 1,053]

Tom,

First, thanks for the excellent post. The key is in jkm2500's (josh) post. In one section, he states, "Just like people die driving their cars, riding motorcycles, hiking, camping, eating, etc..."

However, later on states, "A possible solution (not a neccesary solution) is to come up with a class similar to the comprehensive defensive driving courses that are availble. Teach people how to drive their canopies in traffic. Teach them how to be proficient with their canopy. Teach them what to do to avoid collisions, traffic mishaps, etc by being one step ahead of the game."

This is where the gap is and allow me to expand on my previous post. Do we need to do what I suggested in the first post and interlace canopy knowledge/swooping with a License - maybe not. However, swooping is an increasing discipline in and of itself. We honor the USPA's PRO requirements, the FJC course outline, IRM, recommendations on specialty jumps, etc. On one hand, skydivers demand more for their dues to the USPA, but want less USPA intervention. Do we want the USPA to just be a cool magazine and data recording association or do we want the USPA to provide us with educational recommendations (not regulations).

And on the other hand, we have the opportunity to have people such as yourself (a published author with vast amounts of experience and communication knowledge). We have people like Billvon with aeronautical degrees, Dr. Kallend, Quade, Scott Miller, Brian Germain, manufacturers and a vast pool of rising pro-swooping superstars. All of whom could come together to create a book of knowledge with narratives and diagrams on swooping, modern canopy aerodynamics, DZ swooping operations, steps to swooping, MSL variations and its effect on canopy performance, how to swoop 101, setting up the swoop, abandoning the swoop, when to use front risers, when to use rear risers, when to use the toggles, the outline goes on & on. Wouldn't this compilation of information be the equivalent of an automotive defensive driving course or required motorcycle safety course before one got their "M" endorsement on their driver's license?

A few years ago, Sangiro set up a special locked forum for several people to post and/or review safety articles for consideration in the "Safety" section of the site. I can't help but think that he would be receptive to do the same for a swooping book where the top level "sticky" is the outline and those listed above could contribute the necessary components towards the compilation of that sticky outline towards an educational path of reducing 33% of all fatalities while under a fully-functioning canopy.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Kolla 0]

Hey BIGUN,

Most manufacturers don't sell direct - but rather through a network of dealers. Most direct dealers are quite responsible in their actions and I know of many that have turned down a sale rather than sell to someone they didn't feel was ready for the model/size they wanted to buy.
Then there is selling and buying of used gear - considering that your average canopy lasts a few thousand jumps with proper maintenance, it is likely to have a few owners along the way.

That said, skydiving gear manufacturers do care. It's not just about our customers getting hurt or loosing their lives - they are our friends and jumping buddies too. At PD, we to do our best to educate people about our products by publishing informative articles on the website, offering a demo program (where we do screen customers to the best of our ability before sending out a canopy), making tour stops complete with seminars and coaching jumps and lastly the PD Factory Team has put forth a big effort in the past few years offering seminars and coaching for all levels of canopy piloting.
In addition many of our sponsored teams/individual make a point of sharing their knowledge and coach - often at no charge - in order to keep the sport advancing safely.

Unfortunately I don't have any quick solutions.
I'm intrigued by the "grass roots" movements some have spoken about and hope we can turn trend around.
Lets try to make 2007 a safe year in terms of canopy piloting!

Blue ones,
Kolla Kolbeinsdottir
Performance Designs, Inc.

Blue Skies Magazine

[GravityGirl 0]

I'm on board with the Grass Roots level of education and LZ planning.

But if there is one thing that USPA could contribute, IMHO, it would be to define.... I mean truely define a landing pattern. It needs to be modern and take into consideration all of the componets in the pattern.

As you know, Q, I'm married to an airline pilot, and he will be the first to admit that he prefers NOT to fly aircrat all day and them come to the DZ and fly a parachute.

The landing patterns for planes and parachutes are not and should not be the same. We don't have a tower. We cannot add and take away power at will. We cannot do a go around. And yes, we do a variety of turns to final.

I think the idea of the pattern is loosly defined and only touched upon in FJC and DZ briefings.

So if there is one thing that the USPA, DZOs, S&TAs, etc can do, it's come TOGETHER and clearly define a parachuting pattern. Then educate old and new skydivers.

The rules of yesterday can't last forever. They need to be modernized.

I'm a wild heart, so I'm not all about mega rules and regulatons.... but we all need to be on the same page to protect ourselves and each other.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[billvon 2,400]

I think USPA should take a greater role in HP canopy training. You can currently get a D license with zero HP canopy training; this should change. Here's a copy of a letter I sent to USPA a while back:

----------------
Over the past few years, we have watched as more and more skydivers injure and kill themselves under high performance canopies. In 99% of the cases, this happens to a jumper who does not have the education and experience to fly his canopy safely. In the majority of cases, a larger canopy would have prevented the fatality or mitigated the injury. We, the undersigned, call on USPA to increase their role in canopy training to help prevent these sorts of fatalities in the future.

It is our position that only education can prevent accidents like these. Modern, heavily loaded high performance canopies can be flown safely only after sufficient education and/or experience has been obtained by the jumper. We ask USPA to do the following:

-Develop canopy skills requirements for the “B”, “C”, and “D” licenses that build upon the initial "A" license canopy skills. They should include canopy control classroom training, practical exercises, and a written and practical test.

-If these do not accomplish the goal of reducing fatalities, add canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the “A” through “D” license, with a grandfather clause so this does not affect people currently jumping high wing loadings. As with other skills, restricted licenses would be available for jumpers who choose not to demonstrate HP canopy skills.

-To prevent exceptional jumpers from being held back unnecessarily, allow any instructor, I/E or S+TA to waiver these requirements based on a demonstration of canopy skills.

-Develop a Canopy Instructor (CI) rating which focuses on skills required to safely land heavily loaded high performance canopies. Currently, many jumpers receive no practical HP canopy training at all; it is possible to progress through the ISP jumping only a 288 square foot canopy. With the rapid development of very high performance canopies, canopy skills are as critical for skydiver survival (if not more critical) than freefall skills. The intent of the CI would be to teach the canopy skills required for the new licenses, and to waiver those who demonstrate the skill required to progress to small canopies more quickly than their jump numbers would ordinarily allow.

We recognize that any additional restrictions placed on skydivers should be considered very carefully; skydiving has never been a sport of heavy regulation, and regulations alone will not keep anyone safe. However, new regulations are falling into place already. Individual DZ's are implementing canopy loading restrictions with no education, no commonality and no way to "waiver out" of the requirements. We feel that USPA could implement a canopy training program that will educate more jumpers, be less restrictive and keep even pilots of very high performance canopies alive and jumping.

[bodypilot1 0]

IMO, USPA can do nothing. If they think educating people, who already think they know everything, is going to help prevent this from happening, they are wasting their time.
And banning swooping from their DZ's will only make them go to non USPA DZ's to do it.
Jumpers that do other then a standard pattern need to understand when it's the right time to, and it is safe to do so, and also when it's not, and do a straight in approach.

Be safe....r
Ed

www.WestCoastWingsuits.com
www.PrecisionSkydiving.com

[tkhayes 126]

I think USPA should establish GUIDELINES, just like any other skill or procedure. The dropzone need to establish their own RULES.

THe guidlelines from USPA need to include:
- Canopy skill progressions (i.e. Bill von Novak), with testing and pass/fail suggestions.
- guidleines for aircraft exits, separations (may be less important)
- recommendations for landing patterns and traffic patterns for given landing area sizes and shapes.

We already have skill requirements for freefall to pass/fail in AFF and Coach Jumps. We rehearse and repeat jumps to hone these skills. We do no such thing for canopy flight.

Landing and traffic pattern standards exist in all facets of aviation except skydiving. We have general 'block' diagrams of a "Left hand pattern" that barely applies on most skydives.

It sould be easy to develop a hierarchy of landing priorities and landing 'zones' for different types of skydives and pilots.

Many DZ's have a tight landing area congested because everyone wants to land there. We are lucky enough to have a large landing area, but still make it part of the briefings to know where the expected high-speed traffic is.

It is MY responsibility to ensure the safety at MY dropzone, not USPA's, but I would welcome some suggestions on traffic priority, just like airplane traffic or other aviation traffic.

With a few guidelines, it would be simpler for the dropzone operator to apply it to their DZ, and then help define what 'violations' are and deal with them.

I have always said "If you flew airplanes the way we fly parachutes, the FAA would take your license away for the rest of your life."

TK

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

The landing patterns for planes and parachutes are not and should not be the same. We don't have a tower. We cannot add and take away power at will. We cannot do a go around. And yes, we do a variety of turns to final.

What's wrong with the landing patterns we teach in the first jump course?

At what point in someone's skydiving career do they they decide that the pattern taught in the first jump course is "wrong" or not cool.

j

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

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

That said, skydiving gear manufacturers do care. It's not just about our customers getting hurt or loosing their lives - they are our friends and jumping buddies too. At PD, we to do our best to educate people about our products by publishing informative articles on the website, offering a demo program (where we do screen customers to the best of our ability before sending out a canopy), making tour stops complete with seminars and coaching jumps and lastly the PD Factory Team has put forth a big effort in the past few years offering seminars and coaching for all levels of canopy piloting.
In addition many of our sponsored teams/individual make a point of sharing their knowledge and coach - often at no charge - in order to keep the sport advancing safely.

And, what PD does is appreciated. But, we're talking about a more localized and focused approach than "information out there." As discussed earlier, perhaps the repository of information warehoused by PD could be a part of the formalized solution in the educational path. IMO, think it's going to take a combination of a top-down (USPA Guidelines) and bottom-up (skydiver, DZO, manufacturer) joint effort.

Quote

skydiving gear manufacturers do care. It's not just about our customers getting hurt or loosing their lives - they are our friends and jumping buddies too.

Would PD be willing to be a part of a committee that puts together the training program, approach the USPA and assist with those guidelines that can help reduce these fatalities?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[GravityGirl 0]

>>What's wrong with the landing patterns we teach in the first jump course?

At what point in someone's skydiving career do they they decide that the pattern taught in the first jump course is "wrong" or not cool.
<<

There is nothing uncool about the landing pattern we teach in FJC. It's just not complete.

I can't tell you how many coach jumps I do where the jumper has no clue about where he/she fits into the pattern.

In FJC, we teach directionality. The student is on the biggest canopy at that point. The only person/s in the pattern with them are other lightly loaded parachutes. That's all they get unless they pay for post graduation canopy control lessons.

I take the opportunity to give my "lectures" when people come in to buy gear and/or downsize. I talk about curtesy in the pattern. I talk about "rallying for your slot" in the pattern. I talk about decision time in the pattern. But so many jumpers miss out on that. They are shy or overlooked. That can make them a hazard to themselves and others.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[kallend 1,623]

The fatalities of the last week have not much to do with skill and a whole lot to do with judgment. Additional skills training would not have helped much, if at all.

I don't believe judgment can be taught - it is achieved through experience (often bad experiences).

The DZs must step up with a plan customized to their particular circumstances which achieves spatial and/or temporal separation of skydivers using standard 90 degree turn patterns from those using 180s, 270s, 540s..., and enforce the plan.

...

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

[tbrown 26]

Quote

There needs to be a BSR separating high performance landings areas from standard landing areas.
Let the locals figure out how to do it to match their geography.

I think this is going to have to be a big part of the solution. USPA can do a lot with developing and supporting canopy training and really should beef up canopy performance requirements for all the licenses. But all of that wouldn't have prevented the Eloy accidents, as these guys had 4000 - 5000 jumps apiece and still made fatal errors.

I think stricter segregation of landing areas has to be undertaken. Elsinore sets a good example in that direction. They have three landing zones; a student area, a general landing area, and a hot swooping zone. Students are only allowed to land in the student zone. Experienced jumpers may land in the student zone, but they must give students the right of way. In the general area you need a B license to land and may not make more than a 90 turn before landing. The swoop zone is on the other side of the runway and is truly an "anything goes, enter at your own risk" zone for advanced pilots only. Everybody else stays the heck out of there.

It isn't just the swoopers staying away from the "Sunday jumpers" either. It's us Sunday types staying out of the airspace over the swoopers' "hot zone". People who want to make more than a 90 degree turn need to fly in a designated swoop zone and Sunday drivers who violate the swoopers' airspace need to attend an "old time revival meeting" with their S&TA.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[billvon 2,400]

>The fatalities of the last week have not much to do with skill and a whole lot to do with judgment.

Agreed. But USPA should not react with knee-jerk speed to any one (or even a few) of fatalities; they should look at the situation overall and react to the risks you see _on_average._ And right now, lack of skill/experience is a problem with small HP canopies, one that has to be addressed IMO.

[GravityGirl 0]

Quote

>The fatalities of the last week have not much to do with skill and a whole lot to do with judgment.

Agreed. But USPA should not react with knee-jerk speed to any one (or even a few) of fatalities; they should look at the situation overall and react to the risks you see _on_average._ And right now, lack of skill/experience is a problem with small HP canopies, one that has to be addressed IMO.

IMHO the lack of skill/experience is a direct result of lack of training and like minded guidelines.

From personal experience even the most egotistical jumpers are willing to suck up any valid bit of mentoring that's out there.

If a 100 jump wonder on the dz starts asking around about what path he/she should take to become a high performance canopy pilot, he or she will get 25 different responses.

Not every jumper has the opportunity to seek out formal training. I really think some updated BSRs would set us on the same page and help eliminate confusion for our up and coming jumpers. It will make our jobs a lot easier too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[grimmie 173]

Good point Bill.
At all airports there are distinct patterns for all traffic...Helicopters, jumbo jets,business jets and cessna 182's.
This situation is handled by the pattern first and foremost, and control tower help when needed.
No matter what size canopy a person is jumping a 90 degree front riser turn from base to final will result in a smooth "eyes on the LZ always" landing.
At bigger DZ's it may require a person in the landing area each day to co ordinate, correct and encourage jumpers to land into the wind, after flying a downwind, base and final pattern.
I don't have stats to back up my theory, but I think at a wide open DZ such as Eloy or Perris a person gets the feeling and illusion of unlimited sky to fly in, resulting in less awareness of other canopies.
We also need to do a better job of training our younger jumpers in all aspects of safety, from the manifest window, to the sky, to the packing area.
And we really need to do a better job of retraining some of the experienced jumpers...the "it'll never happen to me crowd".
But the biggest problem to overcome is "human nature", which we will never accomplish in any aspect of any sport...