What do YOU think USPA should do?

[kallend 1,623]

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.

But these swooping-collision accidents are NOT a new thing. Roger Nelson's was in 2003, I had one last year. We don't know how many near misses there have been.

They aren't freak accidents, it's highly predictable that more will happen if swooping through "standard" patterns continues.

...

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

[DBCOOPER 1]

This is from 2002,from a thread I started about a friend of mine buying it at Lake Wales.Note the quote about " I do think there are some lessons that can be learned from this tragedy"
I don't think the lesson has been learned

Re: [AndyMan] Fatal at Lake Wales today? [In reply to] Quote | Reply

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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I do think there are some lessons that can be learned from this tragedy

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


Aparently there are only two witnesses with firsthand knowledge.

Neither has any idea who colided with whom.

The FAA did conduct an investigation which concluded without laying of fault.

The landing area at lake wales is absolutely humumgous, and there were aparently only 4 canopies in the vacinity at the time.

Paul, the Australian was jumping a 105 jedi. He reported having 800 jumps, but this seems to be low by my estimation. He weighed in about 75 KG, or 160 pounds, giving him a wingloading of about 1.6

I understand Mike jumped an equally well loaded Stiletto.

The colision took place after Paul executed a "hook turn". It is unknown if Mike was also in a high speed approach.

Paul was not known for being careless, nor reckless.

To me, this serves as a sober reminder that it can happen to anyone. Keep your head on a swivel.

_Am


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Edit to add link to original post
[http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=287521;#287521

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

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

[billvon 2,400]

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

I agree. Which is why I think a "canopy coach" rating is important. Right now Brian Germain, Wyat Drewes, Scott Miller etc do a good job of teaching advanced canopy control. But most DZ's do not have easy access to these people. Get Brian, Wyat, Scott etc together and have them hammer out a basic certification course syllabus that USPA can adopt. Heck, have them be the first course directors, and create new canopy coaches. That way there's at least a path for a coach to take who wants to start teaching HP canopy flight.

[AFFI 0]

Quote

Get Brian, Wyat, Scott etc together and have them hammer out a basic certification course syllabus that USPA can adopt. Heck, have them be the first course directors, and create new canopy coaches. That way there's at least a path for a coach to take who wants to start teaching HP canopy flight.

great idea!

[dharma1976 0]

Brian already offers such a course

http://bigairsportz.com/instructors_course.php

Cheers

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.

[mustard 0]

Quote

This is from 2002,from a thread I started about a friend of mine buying it at Lake Wales. Note the quote about " I do think there are some lessons that can be learned from this tragedy"
I don't think the lesson has been learned.

Something to consider: I think we all have learned the lesson. That is really not the question. The question is how to *apply* the lesson in a way that can be appropriately implemented. There is no obvious answer to this.

I was at Eloy for the Christmas boogie, but my habit is to get there at the beginning and leave before the last weekend, when there are so many people there that I don't know. Skratch and I left the morning of the first fatality. My application of the "lesson learned" is to limit the jumps I make with so many unfamiliar canopy pilots, and to land on the edges of the landing areas outside of the swooping patterns.

The only thing that I injured at Eloy was my neck, from trying to turn it in unnatural ways under canopy in an attempt to find all the possible threats to my safety.

***
DJan

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

This is from 2002,from a thread I started about a friend of mine buying it at Lake Wales. Note the quote about " I do think there are some lessons that can be learned from this tragedy"
I don't think the lesson has been learned.

Something to consider: I think we all have learned the lesson. That is really not the question. The question is how to *apply* the lesson in a way that can be appropriately implemented. There is no obvious answer to this. .

There is an obvious answer: spatial and/or temporal separation of swoopers from the rest.

...

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

[ccq 0]

Thanks, everyone, for your input. Not surprisingly, there are a lot of differing opinions on what should be done and what should be done by the USPA.

I will bring this up at our first BOD meeting in February. I encourage interested people to attend and/or continue to provide input either to this thread or to me personally.

Be safe out there.

--Q

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

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

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.

Maybe the USPA could serve as a venue for interested parties and DZs to voluntarily get together and advise each other on how and whether this could be done an a DZ by DZ basis. A planning committee for DZs looking to improve their landing patterns. Both from a safety perspective, and from other perspectives such as optimizing the performance value for spectators.

Would anyone be interested in offering genuine advice to DZs, and would any DZs wish to receive it?

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Pulse 0]

The day of my first jump course was the first time I read an article about 'hook turns'. People weren't dying from them yet, but they were getting hurt. As I was getting ready for my sixth jump I saw my first hook turn. Impact was roughly 30 feet from where I was standing and it resulted in a broken back and femur.

As I progressed as a student, I was struck by a simple fact. Skydivers did not know much about how things fly. They didn't know much about flying accidents and how they come about. Worse yet, they didn't talk about it. They didn't seem to care. Luckily, that seems to have changed to a degree. But the fact remains in that many still don't seem to understand or care.

I know I will get flamed for such a statement. But I actually think we're doing quite well and the number of deaths seems very low to me. It's very easy to become very emotional after accidents. We're left wondering, "What can we do? What went wrong? How can we keep this from happening again?" The fact is flying and skydiving are dangerous sports. So dangerous in fact that given enough time, people will die.

Given the number of jumps we make a year. Given the number of high-performance landings we make a year. I am shocked there are not more deaths. I am not saying we shouldn't try to educate. But my point is that we cannot simply start making new rules and ratings because of a few recent deaths. These guys apparently knew what they were doing. Troubling? Yes. Particularly unique? No.

Restrictions tighten gradually. So gradually that few see it. Each generation adding another layer to it feeling there's no harm because they're just adding one more rule to what they already know. What's the big deal.....right?

USPA spends so much time 'promoting' the sport and trying to get people involved. When they die, we grieve. If we want to stop death in such a dangerous sport, it seems the easiest thing we could do is tell them to stay home. No skydivers = no skydiving related deaths.

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

But my point is that we cannot simply start making new rules and ratings because of a few recent deaths.

33% of all fatalities per annum during landings. No... Not recent. Almost every year.

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

The day of my first jump course was the first time I read an article about 'hook turns'. People weren't dying from them yet, but they were getting hurt. As I was getting ready for my sixth jump I saw my first hook turn. Impact was roughly 30 feet from where I was standing and it resulted in a broken back and femur.

As I progressed as a student, I was struck by a simple fact. Skydivers did not know much about how things fly. They didn't know much about flying accidents and how they come about. Worse yet, they didn't talk about it. They didn't seem to care. Luckily, that seems to have changed to a degree. But the fact remains in that many still don't seem to understand or care.

I know I will get flamed for such a statement. But I actually think we're doing quite well and the number of deaths seems very low to me. It's very easy to become very emotional after accidents. We're left wondering, "What can we do? What went wrong? How can we keep this from happening again?" The fact is flying and skydiving are dangerous sports. So dangerous in fact that given enough time, people will die.

Given the number of jumps we make a year. Given the number of high-performance landings we make a year. I am shocked there are not more deaths. I am not saying we shouldn't try to educate. But my point is that we cannot simply start making new rules and ratings because of a few recent deaths. These guys apparently knew what they were doing. Troubling? Yes. Particularly unique? No.

Restrictions tighten gradually. So gradually that few see it. Each generation adding another layer to it feeling there's no harm because they're just adding one more rule to what they already know. What's the big deal.....right?

USPA spends so much time 'promoting' the sport and trying to get people involved. When they die, we grieve. If we want to stop death in such a dangerous sport, it seems the easiest thing we could do is tell them to stay home. No skydivers = no skydiving related deaths.

When I started skydiving I was told the BSRs were written in blood. I now KNOW that to be true.

I don't find them particularly burdensome.

I don't find my friends' deaths a particularly endearing aspect of the sport. I didn't enjoy being involved in a low altitude collision with a swooper. Segregating landing types seems a small price to pay to avoid these things.

...

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

[Trae 1]

in reply to "Something to consider: I think we all have learned the lesson. That is really not the question. The question is how to *apply* the lesson in a way that can be appropriately implemented. There is no obvious answer to this.

I was at Eloy for the Christmas boogie, but my habit is to get there at the beginning and leave before the last weekend, when there are so many people there that I don't know. Skratch and I left the morning of the first fatality. My application of the "lesson learned" is to limit the jumps I make with so many unfamiliar canopy pilots, and to land on the edges of the landing areas outside of the swooping patterns. "
.........................

Nice risk assessment and avoidance.
bit like avoiding friday and saturday nights at the steel work pubs.

I have to disagree about there being no obvious answer.
It is simply for those with the knowledge and experinece to be the ones in control.

At the moment the power is with the newbie who can buy & fly a HP canopy with little obstruction.

The answer is to obstruct the little beggars...in the nicest way poss. at the same time sharing and showing them the way if you know it.
They can be rewarded with the canopy of their dreams when they show sufficient skill to have a reasonable chance of survival.

Days past SO's loved grounding dangerous canopy fliers . Nowadays most seem too busy to even look up.

Exert safety conscious control over new people entering the sport .... huh don't we do that?

[dharma1976 0]

Couldnt agree more....

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.

[Pulse 0]

Quote

Quote

But my point is that we cannot simply start making new rules and ratings because of a few recent deaths.

33% of all fatalities per annum during landings. No... Not recent. Almost every year.

Right, I guess I thought that went without saying. That doesn't change my stance. The emotional build-up is much higher because of the short time frame between them. Logically, there is no difference than if there was a month between them. Two people are dead, there's no getting around that.

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[Pulse 0]

Quote

When I started skydiving I was told the BSRs were written in blood. I now KNOW that to be true.

I don't find them particularly burdensome.

I don't find my friends' deaths a particularly endearing aspect of the sport. I didn't enjoy being involved in a low altitude collision with a swooper. Segregating landing types seems a small price to pay to avoid these things.

No one likes death but it's part of life.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks people were saying they would be willing to give up a certain amount of freedom if it meant they would be safer. Down the road people complain about taking their shoes off at airports.

People have short memories and the same goes here. We don't find the current BSR's burdensome because that's what we know. We're used to them. Is that justification enough to add to more? Add more BSR's, require more regulation, require more USPA-sanctioned training. Ten years from now people will still be dying and there we'll be wanting to add more regulation. "After all, the current BSR's aren't particularly bothersome."

Even if more BSR's are the end-all solution and I don't recognize it, there will ALWAYS be loop-holes of one form or another. People will always find their way through the system. Recently we had a jumper show up at our drop zone that said he recieved his AFF training and A-license at Eloy. Yet he didn't know how to pack. I've seen this happen numerous times.

I agree with you. Segragated landing areas are NOT a bad idea and I will always support that. But that should be done at the drop zone level. The initial post was a wide open 'what should USPA do' question. I fear any knee-jerk reactions and regulations.

I will blame experienced jumpers passing on bad information from time to time. People downsizing too quickly. People not understanding the discipline involved in high-speed landings. People becoming complacent while flying. In essence, people ignoring their own mortality. These are all problems contributing to the ongoing deaths and injuries under open parachutes.

I guess my main question is: If we add regulations now. What do we do in the future when people are still dying? It's nice to think about an age where people don't die. But it's a fact of life. Engage in high-risk activities and it becomes even more of a factor.

"...gravity is constant and powerful, and speed kills. In combination, they are particularly destructive."
~ Dan Manningham

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

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

According to the Princeton on-line dictionary; "Judgment is the cognitive process of reaching a decision or drawing conclusions."

IMO that can be done one of two ways. 1) as you state, "through [often bad] experience," or 2) proactive education. In either case, it is education. The question is; can one afford to learn from their own bad experience if the result of learning is fatal? What have others learned from these fatalities?

Dr. Kallend - You're the man who gave us a computer model that taught exit order to an entire industry. How many lives did you save by demonstrating the FF'ers should get out after BF'ers? Between yourself, Billvon, and Winsor, shattered the notion of a 45 degree rule and taught us it was wrong.

I know you saved my life at least once when my four way refused to get on the plane over the ff'ers protest of, "we always do it this way" and we pointed them to your model. Because you taught us, we learned and exercised judgement. Because we exercised judgement based on your educating us - they learned and are now exercising judgement.

John, sometimes I just don't get you. An educator opposed to education who's demonstrated education works and can save lives.

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

[Pulse 0]

Two thoughts:

"Good experience comes from experience. Experience comes from poor judgement."

"Experience gives the test first...the lesson later."

Both are true and I would go so far as to say there is no learning without experience. I could go on forever in the classroom about talking about using good judgement. What you should do in particular situations, why you should perform as such and so on. But until that person is there they'll never have total appreciation for it.

It's well known that most accidents are not caused by one big problem. But rather a culmination of many small miscalculations, the 'error chain'. The trick is knowing when you're in it and knowing how to break it. Basically, knowing when you're in trouble. And it's not always obvious. Skills like this are impossible to learn without experience.

Sadly, some will never get the chance to learn from their experience because they realized their error much too late. When they were in too deep. That's when WE have to gleen what we can from their experience. This is what incident reports and NTSB reports are for. It is an ongoing process.

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[AFFI 0]

Quote

Both are true and I would go so far as to say there is no learning without experience. I could go on forever in the classroom about talking about using good judgement. What you should do in particular situations, why you should perform as such and so on. But until that person is there they'll never have total appreciation for it.

Totally agree.

Letting them make decisions while still on student status builds good judgment.

For example:
When I am in the training process with a student and the clouds are not acceptable for a student jump, first I make sure they understand the issues concerning clouds and if there is room on the Otter I will ride up with the student and let them look down and give them the opportunity to make the call of a no-go themselves. Basically, with guidance, let them make decisions concerning many aspects like canopy size choices, sunset loads that have gotten a little too dark for a student jump, bad weather, winds, stuff like that. 9 times out of 10 they seem to make the right calls that lean toward the side of safety. Allowing them to make the call to ride down or not board in the first place seems to breed better judgment earlier on.
-

Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

[airdvr 197]

Mustard said "The only thing that I injured at Eloy was my neck, from trying to turn it in unnatural ways under canopy in an attempt to find all the possible threats to my safety. "

Herein lies the key. Seems that swoopers are more intent on their landing set-up than they are in avoiding other traffic, sometimes with fatal consequences. In these cases they simply were not aware of the other taffic in their direct path, or the trafic did something unexpected.

The canopy ride used to be a fun, relaxing finish to a jump. Not anymore. From the time I stow the slider and release the brakes I'm on the lookout for someone who's not paying attention. This is somethng that was drilled into our psyche as students and it's gotten worse with HP canopies buzzing around the sky.

The USPA won't be able to do much about this. It has to be something everyone fears before it will be accepted by the masses. The old "low man has the right of way" rule just doesn,t work anymore. It also has to do with ego. Part of the reason people swoop is the attention it gets. Everyone loves to watch a good swoop myself included. So I let the swoopers land close and this old man is content to walk.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

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?

No, this course either shouldn't be a part of license requirements, or should not concentrate on performance-oriented canopies. Not everybody with "C" or "D" license is flying or going to fly a HP canopy. There is a lot of jumpers with thousands of jumps, who jump a Spectre loaded at 1.1-1.3, and have no intention to downsize or change the canopy.

However we can introduce additional requirements for people who want to jump HP canopies. There are already such requirements for wingsuits, camera flying and so on - why not have a specific requirements for a HP canopies?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[icevideot 0]

Quote

There are already such requirements for wingsuits, camera flying and so on

I don't mean any disrespect but apparently those are only recommendations. The word requirement implies some sort of enforcement. Some dzs have their own requirements for these and other types of jumps but even they are only somewhat enforced.

This is just my observation. It may not be an absolute everywhere.

"... this ain't a Nerf world."

[Pulse 0]

Quote

However we can introduce additional requirements for people who want to jump HP canopies. There are already such requirements for wingsuits, camera flying and so on - why not have a specific requirements for a HP canopies?

What falls under 'high performance' canopy. Not all that long ago (mid-90's) I read this definition being: Aspect Ratio of 2.5:1, and wing loading of 1.3:1

Does this still hold true? I would still agree but I guess the questions are:

Who would determine this?
What criteria would we be using?

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[loudtom 5]

What John said.
These were expierienced people with lots of training and jumps.
As an S&TA I plan to talk to all the jumpers I come in contact with at my small dz and let them know what is up...
And our dz will have a plan for all four of us in the air at the same time. I try to make light of my small dz cause we won't have the same problem bigger dz's will have, but we will still have a plan.
lt

tom #90 #54 #08 and now #5 with a Bronze :-)

[loudtom 5]

John, sometimes I just don't get you. An educator opposed to education who's demonstrated education works and can save lives.