2 2
BMAC615

WL of 1 for <C-License?

Recommended Posts

On 12/1/2022 at 6:21 AM, sfzombie13 said:

i read the comment several times before replying as i did, and i am glad they did not let that factor into the decision.  as for the second part of the comment quoted above, i would think that they would be registered as an llc to avoid that scenario, but i also wouldn't have thought they would be registered in ny and couldn't find any articles of incorporation quickly so they may be.  there are no legal problems with mandating anything relating to parachuting by the uspa, as they are all nothing more than recommendations, or so i've been told by the resident legal expert i know.  he could be wrong though with the differing states' legal structure, and in that case, i'd say the risk was worth it. 

serious question for everyone reading this:  is the POSSIBILITY of preventing a lawsuit more important than the POSSIBILITY of preventing a fatality?  if anyone in the uspa says yes to that they need to go.  it's not like any of it would affect the meat of the sport anyway, just the minimum of folks that don't listen well in the first place.  take that to it's logical conclusion and it seems like a minuscule chance of a problem.

Dude. I don't know how you can read what you quoted, then explicitly acknowledge that we're not talking about a liability issue, and then go right back to the legal thing. I was talking about USPA going out of business from... a lack of business. This is a thing that commonly happens when a business does something enormously unpopular with its customers.

Also strictly as an aside: forming an LLC doesn't do a single thing to protect an organization from liability, it's intended to protect *other* associated entities from *that* entity's liability.

On 12/1/2022 at 1:36 PM, sfzombie13 said:

all one has to do to get a waiver

Restrictions sure do sound trivial when they apply to disciplines you don't practice, don't they?

On 12/1/2022 at 6:37 PM, sfzombie13 said:

i can tell you right now the collective opinion is wrong

This has got to be one of the most arrogant things I've seen on this forum.

On 12/1/2022 at 6:37 PM, sfzombie13 said:

there are not too many variables for a wingloading restriction, ask the uk.

Ask them what, exactly? What about the UK doing a thing implies that it was a good thing?

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but the BPA has the power of law, hence losing business isn't nearly as much of a concern for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah, so your opinion is the uspa is a business organization and not a safety organization like folks are implying.  got it.  i don't know what you find so hard to understand, except that maybe things aren't black and white, in other words, they have nuance.  just so you're crystal clear on my views since i would hate for you to continue being confused by my words i'll spell it out for you one time.  i am in favor of endorsements on licenses, and it doesn't affect me and most likely never will.  it is a matter of safety, and the uspa should implement it regardless of what a few <insert something descriptive here> holdouts say or think.  said endorsements would cover wing loading, crw, wingsuit, angle flying, head down, and anything else that needs one.  when the endorsements take effect one could grandfather any of them by requesting a waiver and a performance test. 

as far as the rest of your comment, welcome to the old us of a.  restrictions are a fact of life and there is no true freedom here, and it's high time you learn that.  unless you think you can drive around without a seatbelt, or motorcycle helmet, or want to provide food for yourself without a license, or want to stop paying taxes and think they'll let you keep your land, or whatever.  you sound like one of those idiotic libertarians, aka the cat class.  i'm hesitant to call you one though since that is an insult to me i treat it like one for others. 

calling folks wrong is arrogant?  when they are obviously so wrong?  nice to know.  it seems to have worked extremely well in the uk, and that is what i was referring to, since they can do it, obviously it can be done and to think otherwise is stupid, foolish, and the way to get people killed.  if that is arrogant, so be it. 

go ahead and post a comment i made that contradicts any of this, i'll wait.  i've got all weekend and i'm not jumping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2022 at 6:21 PM, chuckakers said:

USPA has not "refused" to implement a wingloading restriction. Wording it that way suggests the organization should implement one but won't. That would be incorrect. Wingloading restrictions have been discussed on numerous occasions and the collective opinion is that there are simply too many variables to have a one-size-fits-all rule.

I am pretty well educated on performance canopy flight and can attest to this. There are jumpers who begin formal performance flight training early in their careers and others who have thousands of jumps before testing the CP waters. Some jumpers take to performance flight quite easily while others struggle with their progression. The list of variables goes on and on, and that's the point. What is safe for one jumper of a given license or jump numbers may not be safe for another.

Local leadership is in the best position to evaluate, educate, and enforce.

While we're at it, why do you not mention D license holders in your suggestion to make a restriction? I know some D folks that I would never want to see playing with higher wingloadings. License levels do not verify skills beyond those required to achieve the license.

@chuckakers I word it that way because I believe USPA should - based on USPA’s data. I recognize this has been a hot topic of debate going back to and before I started jumping and instructing in the early 90s. I’m familiar with the arguments against and it’s clear they are flawed.

The data shows that local leadership has often failed to evaluate, educate and enforce - as evidenced by the number of canopy landing problems - which continues to be USPA’s reported number one cause of injury and death each year.

I don’t mention D License holders because, I believe, by the time someone has 500 jumps on low WL canopies, they should have a firm foundation of knowledge, skills and abilities. They will be better prepared to make decisions and fly a canopy with a WL >1, compared to those who do not. The trend of multiple canopy changes and increasing WL beyond 1 within the first 200 jumps and beyond 1.5 by 500 increases risk, injury and death.

USPA’s Canopy Risk Quotient tool, data from USPA’s incident reports and multiple USPA documents confirm my belief. Skydivers who exceed a WL of 1 within their first 200 jumps are assuming a high level of risk that should be considered unacceptable. Further, it is unclear as to the number of incidents these high risk jumpers have contributed to over the years. Could have incidents, involving those with more than 500 jumps, been avoided if this rule had been in place?

As discussed, A, B & C license holders have other restrictions that skydivers just accept. For example, flying a wingsuit. We can all agree that the 200 jump minimum is arbitrary and there are many who could manage to fly a wingsuit before 200 jumps and there are those with 2000 who would struggle. Nevertheless, people accept that rule because that’s the rule. USPA does not accept the argument, “I should be able to fly a wingsuit before 200 jumps because I’m an adult and I’m able to take responsibility for my decisions.” Everyone accepts the fact that flying a wingsuit before 200 jumps increases risk beyond an acceptable level.

There are no special snow flakes. There are no exceptions. That’s the rule. And everyone accepts it.

Same with minimum opening altitudes. There are many who could use specialized equipment and training and could consistently open below 1,500 ft without incident. USPA does not accept the argument, “I should be able to open below 1,500 ft because I’m an adult and I’m able to take responsibility for my decisions.” No, opening below 1,500 ft increases risk beyond an acceptable level.

Flying a canopy with a WL >1.1 before 200 jumps and >1.5 before 500 is no different. It increases risk beyond - what should be - an acceptable level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or they could implement an endorsement system covering everything.  what uspa CANNOT DO is nothing.  to continue to do nothing is to allow fatalities to occur, something a "safety" organization just isn't supposed to do, legal authority or no legal authority.  they've made their choice, doing nothing for decades.  time for action, unless uspa is ok with preventable fatalities to just continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To respond to sfzombie13, if you are that convinced a new rule is the proper thing to do, I suggest writing up your idea in the form of a motion, and ask your Regional Director to submit it to the Safety & Training Committee to vote on. Actions of a member usually get better results that comments on DZ.com. Most of the ideas for any change come from members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, skypilotA1 said:

To respond to sfzombie13, if you are that convinced a new rule is the proper thing to do, I suggest writing up your idea in the form of a motion, and ask your Regional Director to submit it to the Safety & Training Committee to vote on. Actions of a member usually get better results that comments on DZ.com. Most of the ideas for any change come from members.

I agree. Paul is spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing I got my D license already. What a mess this would make...

Lots of high and mighty going on here. What works at your DZ may not work at others. I have plenty of friends who broke themselves underloading a canopy.

There's already enough people on here screaming a GoPro under 200 jumps will kill you because USPA says so. I don't think further undermining credibility of USPA recommendations with this idea is necessary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like that will do any good.  even if someone suggests it, uspa will just screw it up to the point it is worthless.  too much fighting for a safety feature means nobody cares about safety.  they sure do worry about a "nanny state" though, like anyone has any real freedom in the us anyway, unless you are rich that is.  you guys just keep up the look you want us to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lyosha said:

Good thing I got my D license already. What a mess this would make...

Lots of high and mighty going on here. What works at your DZ may not work at others. I have plenty of friends who broke themselves underloading a canopy.

There's already enough people on here screaming a GoPro under 200 jumps will kill you because USPA says so. I don't think further undermining credibility of USPA recommendations with this idea is necessary.

Can you please elaborate on your claim of increased risk by “under loading a canopy?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way that I can imagine "under-loading" a canopy to be dangerous is if you combine that "under-loaded canopy" with gusty winds with strong updrafts and even stronger down-drafts.

.... which makes us question why you were jumping in gusty winds???????????

When the air gets bumpy, POPS sit on the balcony and watch young pups get dragged through the cacti.

Hah!

Hah!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, lyosha said:

 I have plenty of friends who broke themselves underloading a canopy.

Hey lyosha, that claim surprises me too.

It is very rare that an underloaded canopy is dangerous. Maybe, say, a very large crossbraced canopy with a tiny jumper -- that can collapse more easily at low wing loading with its small nose openings.

Or are you including cases where the jumper screwed up their flight planning? I never had any big problem jumping accuracy canopies at 0.65 wing loading, in high winds where I was being pushed backwards right to landing, even if the landing was a bit rough.  But it does take some actual spotting, so if you get dumped out of a turbine aircraft at a DZ with a lot of obstacles and a tight LZ, you could easily get into trouble. But that's not directly due to the low wing loading.

A light wing loading canopy is more likely in nasty turbulence to - for example - fold a wingtip under, but that's more or less compensated for, by its much more benign behavior with a sudden loss of lift on one side.

So I'm also curious just what sort of circumstances existed where you had friends breaking themselves under (and possibly "due to") light wing loading.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
7 hours ago, lyosha said:

You tell me.  You're the one advocating for severe restrictions.

That’s not how this works. You claim to have direct knowledge of incidents resulting in people being injured for “under loading a canopy.” You either provide evidence or admit you do not have any direct knowledge of such incidents.

Edited by BMAC615

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, BMAC615 said:

That’s not how this works. You claim to have direct knowledge of incidents resulting in people being injured for “under loading a canopy.” You either provide evidence or admit you do not have any direct knowledge of such incidents.

?

I'm not the one trying to force my personal view of safety and danger onto someone.

If I answer your question, will you never again suggest wingloading be regulated? The bargain should go both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lyosha said:

?

I'm not the one trying to force my personal view of safety and danger onto someone.

If I answer your question, will you never again suggest wingloading be regulated? The bargain should go both ways.

Again, that’s not how this works. Either provide evidence of incidents and details of your “plenty of friends” that were injured as a result of “under loading a canopy” or admit you are just perpetuating a myth that has no basis in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also interested in this underloading thing. I'm surprised that BASE jumpers aren't dropping like flies, and I guess I was just exceedingly lucky to have made several hundred jumps in the 80's at a wingloading of about .7, as an experienced jumper, in a variety of winds.

Wendy P.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
11 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

Again, that’s not how this works. Either provide evidence of incidents and details of your “plenty of friends” that were injured as a result of “under loading a canopy” or admit you are just perpetuating a myth that has no basis in fact.

With all due respect, who appointed you czar of how all things work?

My answer, as well as the other topics from the realm of canopy selection, is thoroughly covered by any canopy course worth their salt - mandatory for a B license these days (in my opinion a good thing).  Not sure whether you got your B license already, but if you can't think of a reason someone would want to increase their wingloading as a safety measure, it's time to re-up.

In the mean time, if you have gaps in your understanding of fundamental mechanics of ram air canopies, I humbly request you remove yourself from a conversation about shoving "safety" down people's throats with regards to that topic.

Wendy, BASE jumpers are dropping like flies.  The topic of wingloading, it's effects, and what the "appropriate" wingloading is are areas of robust discussion in that community.  There are various arguments that can point someone towards one hazard or another.  You should talk to someone that runs BASE courses or a gear manufacturer about it if interested.  I only understand the high level points, and probably not all of them, but enough to understand that it's a fluid decision and not my place to tell someone what their wingloading should be.  I'm not sure what your point there was :-/

Edited by lyosha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of “under loading” canopies…in my observations of several thousand student jumps, on the students first downsize from the huge canopies used during AFF, loaded at less than 1x1, the students canopy control and landings dramatically improve when they reach a 1x1 wingloading. This assumes the student has gained enough experience, learned the proper flair techniques, and know the appropriate sight picture.  Based solely on this information, the “under loading” premise is valid. Of course, the practical aspect necessary rules out higher wingloading of new students. The data (and common sense) clearly indicates it is safer to place brand new students with “underloaded” canopies.  I have seen no clear indications or data showing “underloading” of main canopies presents clear dangers, except for high winds and turbulence, both of which are usually observable and predictable. 
     I would be interested in any objective data showing the dangers of underloading canopies, in general, with licensed jumpers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, lyosha said:

With all due respect, who appointed you czar of how all things work?

My answer, as well as the other topics from the realm of canopy selection, is thoroughly covered by any canopy course worth their salt - mandatory for a B license these days (in my opinion a good thing).  Not sure whether you got your B license already, but if you can't think of a reason someone would want to increase their wingloading as a safety measure, it's time to re-up.

In the mean time, if you have gaps in your understanding of fundamental mechanics of ram air canopies, I humbly request you remove yourself from a conversation about shoving "safety" down people's throats with regards to that topic.

Wendy, BASE jumpers are dropping like flies.  The topic of wingloading, it's effects, and what the "appropriate" wingloading is are areas of robust discussion in that community.  There are various arguments that can point someone towards one hazard or another.  You should talk to someone that runs BASE courses or a gear manufacturer about it if interested.  I only understand the high level points, and probably not all of them, but enough to understand that it's a fluid decision and not my place to tell someone what their wingloading should be.  I'm not sure what your point there was :-/

The point is you still haven’t provided any data or objective evidence of your claim that you have direct knowledge of “plenty of friends who broke themselves underloading a canopy.”

Either provide evidence or admit you made it up to support your flawed belief.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, skypilotA1 said:

On the subject of “under loading” canopies…in my observations of several thousand student jumps, on the students first downsize from the huge canopies used during AFF, loaded at less than 1x1, the students canopy control and landings dramatically improve when they reach a 1x1 wingloading. This assumes the student has gained enough experience, learned the proper flair techniques, and know the appropriate sight picture.  Based solely on this information, the “under loading” premise is valid. Of course, the practical aspect necessary rules out higher wingloading of new students. The data (and common sense) clearly indicates it is safer to place brand new students with “underloaded” canopies.  I have seen no clear indications or data showing “underloading” of main canopies presents clear dangers, except for high winds and turbulence, both of which are usually observable and predictable. 
     I would be interested in any objective data showing the dangers of underloading canopies, in general, with licensed jumpers.

Here’s Scott Miller landing an “under loaded” student canopy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 12/6/2022 at 12:36 PM, riggerrob said:

The only way that I can imagine "under-loading" a canopy to be dangerous is if you combine that "under-loaded canopy" with gusty winds with strong updrafts and even stronger down-drafts.

.... which makes us question why you were jumping in gusty winds???????????

When the air gets bumpy, POPS sit on the balcony and watch young pups get dragged through the cacti.

Hah!

Hah!

There is one case of a canopy that had a nasty disposition when not loaded on the heavy side for the performance of the day. The Nova.

I had a Nova 135. At 220 pounds in street clothes, it had two speeds - fast, and f*ckn fast. It was blamed for several low altitude, light loading canopy collapses and at least one death if memory serves.

When people called me out for jumping it, I would tell them that "I got a good one".

Edited by chuckakers
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2022 at 12:21 AM, BMAC615 said:

Then what is the reason USPA refuses to implement a WL restriction for A, B & C License holders?

You keep saying "refused" as if USPA has made a policy decision on this. Most likely it has never even been formally debated. As far as I can tell you would seem to be the only one concerned about it here. And even then all you do is keep asking about it without making any personal recommendation about just what it is you want from USPA. In brief, the reason would be that very few jumpers want USPA to impose such restrictions and therefore it has never been seriously considered. USPA is run by jumpers for jumpers. It's just that simple.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2022 at 6:51 AM, sfzombie13 said:

like that will do any good.  even if someone suggests it, uspa will just screw it up to the point it is worthless.  too much fighting for a safety feature means nobody cares about safety.  they sure do worry about a "nanny state" though, like anyone has any real freedom in the us anyway, unless you are rich that is.  you guys just keep up the look you want us to see. 

There is no hard data to support your statement concerning USPA.  Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and this is a good place to express it. What your statement seems to indicate to me is “a keyboard warrior, lots of talk but no action”. I really could not say if this is correct, but it appears to indicate such. Again, I suggest if this is something you truly believe would work, push it up to your Regional Director, try to get it implemented. I, personally, have several suggestions from members I am presenting to the USPA Board in February in Reno. That’s how things get done. I cannot recall any case where a rule was implemented or changed simply because of comments on DZ.com.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2