Minimum Opening Altitudes

[fcajump 164]

2 hours ago, davenuk said:

i forgot my rigger had done this as I hadnt asked him to. (i think it's a general advisory now).

he did tell me he had but i forgot and returned it to him because it was flashing "E".

*facepalm*

on the subject of WL - BS in the uk have implemented a new minimum canopy size chart by jump numbers a la francaise.

I could be 100% wrong, but I think BPA has the teeth of law, whereas USPA has the consensus of the ruled.
 

[gowlerk 2,114]

8 hours ago, fcajump said:

I could be 100% wrong, but I think BPA has the teeth of law, whereas USPA has the consensus of the ruled.
 

Yes, Britain and France are among the Nanny States.

[BMAC615 209]

5 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Yes, Britain and France are among the Nanny States.

@gowlerk, Do you support minimum 200 jumps for wingsuit flights?

[gowlerk 2,114]

2 minutes ago, BMAC615 said:

@gowlerk, Do you support minimum 200 jumps for wingsuit flights?

I know almost nothing about wingsuiting. However I do know that the wingsuiting community seems to support that number as an absolute floor.

[BMAC615 209]

11 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I know almost nothing about wingsuiting. However I do know that the wingsuiting community seems to support that number as an absolute floor.

Is that considered a Nanny State rule?

[Bokdrol 44]

16 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Yes, Britain and France are among the Nanny States

Just like that CI or instructor who is always ticking off/grounding jumpers for in air/under canopy infringements, however minor, and who we in fact need on the DZ to keep us on our toes, we might also need the Nanny State to keep us safe/r.  Personal opinion only, of course. 

[gowlerk 2,114]

36 minutes ago, BMAC615 said:

Is that considered a Nanny State rule?

Only if it is mandated by a government.

[gowlerk 2,114]

4 minutes ago, Bokdrol said:

we might also need the Nanny State to keep us safe/r.  Personal opinion only, of course. 

The nanny states make hard and fast rules that are mandatory. You can not operate an unaffiliated DZ in what I call a nanny state. This gives too much power to groups like BPA. In my opinion of course,

[riggerrob 613]

1 hour ago, BMAC615 said:

Is that considered a Nanny State rule?

I would not consider it a Nanny State Rule since it was written in blood before bureaucrats meddled with standards. The industry agreed on consensus before rule-makers got involved.

That rule was written in blood by a bunch of dead skydivers whose egos exceeded their abilities. After reading a few accident reports, leading wing suit manufacturers agreed on the 200 jump minimum. Since - back then - wing suit manufacturers were the only ones training and certifying wing-suit instructors, it was an easy decision.

A few decades earlier, the same logic was used to insist on a 200 jump minimum before jumping a camera. Young jumpers are astonished when I tell them that my first few camera jumps included a bulky video camera bolted to my helmet with an even bulkier Video Cassette Recorder strapped to my chest. Freefall video never became reliable until all the components could be crammed into a single box.

Pioneer BASE jumpers (early 1980s) also agreed that skydivers needed to demonstrate a minimum of 200 precision landings before jumping from fixed objects.

Back during the mid-1980s, tandem manufacturers applied a similar logic when they required a minimum of 500 jumps and 3 years in the sport before becoming tandem instructors.

OTOH BPA bureaucrats are extremely conservative.

I had an inkling of how bureaucrats think during my brief tenure on the CSPA's Technical Committee.

Bottom line, junior jumpers simply do not know what they do not know before 200 jumps. It is about demonstrating basic life-saving skills - during simple skydives - a few hundred times. They need to prove that they can keep themselves alive during a minimum of 200 jumps before adding any additional complication. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,304]

2 hours ago, riggerrob said:

I would not consider it a Nanny State Rule since it was written in blood before bureaucrats meddled with standards. The industry agreed on consensus before rule-makers got involved.

That rule was written in blood by a bunch of dead skydivers whose egos exceeded their abilities. After reading a few accident reports, leading wing suit manufacturers agreed on the 200 jump minimum. Since - back then - wing suit manufacturers were the only ones training and certifying wing-suit instructors, it was an easy decision.

A few decades earlier, the same logic was used to insist on a 200 jump minimum before jumping a camera. Young jumpers are astonished when I tell them that my first few camera jumps included a bulky video camera bolted to my helmet with an even bulkier Video Cassette Recorder strapped to my chest. Freefall video never became reliable until all the components could be crammed into a single box.

Pioneer BASE jumpers (early 1980s) also agreed that skydivers needed to demonstrate a minimum of 200 precision landings before jumping from fixed objects.

Back during the mid-1980s, tandem manufacturers applied a similar logic when they required a minimum of 500 jumps and 3 years in the sport before becoming tandem instructors.

OTOH BPA bureaucrats are extremely conservative.

I had an inkling of how bureaucrats think during my brief tenure on the CSPA's Technical Committee.

Bottom line, junior jumpers simply do not know what they do not know before 200 jumps. It is about demonstrating basic life-saving skills - during simple skydives - a few hundred times. They need to prove that they can keep themselves alive during a minimum of 200 jumps before adding any additional complication. 

Hi Rob,

Re:  junior jumpers simply do not know what they do not know before 200 jumps

The late Jim Lowe [ D-855 ] once said that you only really started learning skydiving after you had 200 jumps.  

I agree with him & you.

Jerry Baumchen

[BMAC615 209]

12 hours ago, riggerrob said:

I would not consider it a Nanny State Rule since it was written in blood before bureaucrats meddled with standards. The industry agreed on consensus before rule-makers got involved.

That rule was written in blood by a bunch of dead skydivers whose egos exceeded their abilities. After reading a few accident reports, leading wing suit manufacturers agreed on the 200 jump minimum. Since - back then - wing suit manufacturers were the only ones training and certifying wing-suit instructors, it was an easy decision.

A few decades earlier, the same logic was used to insist on a 200 jump minimum before jumping a camera. Young jumpers are astonished when I tell them that my first few camera jumps included a bulky video camera bolted to my helmet with an even bulkier Video Cassette Recorder strapped to my chest. Freefall video never became reliable until all the components could be crammed into a single box.

Pioneer BASE jumpers (early 1980s) also agreed that skydivers needed to demonstrate a minimum of 200 precision landings before jumping from fixed objects.

Back during the mid-1980s, tandem manufacturers applied a similar logic when they required a minimum of 500 jumps and 3 years in the sport before becoming tandem instructors.

OTOH BPA bureaucrats are extremely conservative.

I had an inkling of how bureaucrats think during my brief tenure on the CSPA's Technical Committee.

Bottom line, junior jumpers simply do not know what they do not know before 200 jumps. It is about demonstrating basic life-saving skills - during simple skydives - a few hundred times. They need to prove that they can keep themselves alive during a minimum of 200 jumps before adding any additional complication. 

How many people with under 200 jumps died flying wingsuits before the BSR was put in place?

[Baksteen 84]

I have no problem living in a nanny country.

Your right to kill yourself doing shit you are not ready for is to me way less important than:
1) the grief you cause an instructor (who is a whole different animal from the US-version) who has to reason with a bull headed jumper without being able to throw the rulebook at him
2) traumatising everyone who you force to watch you femur in
3) the bereavement of those you leave behind
4) the bad image you project onto the sport
5) and even the paperwork you cause the emergency responders.

The Dutch rules limit your canopy choice and wingloading based on the canopy model, your total number of jumps, the number of jumps you made in the past twelve months. (https://skydivekompasroos.nl/en/).

They are complained about by many, but I have never found them too restrictive. These days a Chief Instructor can allow a jumper to jump a canopy one size smaller than the rules mandate. If more leeway is wanted, you can apply to the national organisation (KNVvL) for a waiver.

This obviously applies to normal progression. If, say, I was to start jumping tomorrow after the corona-break, the guide posted would put me on a first jump canopy (which I would seriously consider anyway). The rule however is that I have to make my first jump(s) in consultation with an instructor (been a while though since I read the exact procedure).

[nwt 131]

13 hours ago, Baksteen said:

I have no problem living in a nanny country.

I'm very glad I don't, and I will oppose attempts to turn us into one.

[pchapman 278]

19 hours ago, Baksteen said:

The Dutch rules limit your canopy choice and wingloading based on the canopy model, your total number of jumps, the number of jumps you made in the past twelve months. (https://skydivekompasroos.nl/en/).

Interesting to see those rules! -- including how they classify their canopies into levels 1-7.

But, oh man they're strict. At least regarding recent experience. If that calculator does cover all the parts of the Dutch rules, looks like I could have thousands of jumps on my swooping canopy, and not be allowed to fly it unless I had a hundred jumps in the last year. Or similarly, if a national champion swooper took a break for a year, next year he would be down to flying stuff like a Pilot at 1.05 wing loading max until he built his 1-year jump numbers up. Unless he could grovel for a waiver. Bizarre.

(As we digress from Opening Altitude rules to those about Wingsuits and about Wing Loadings...)

Edited October 14, 2022 by pchapman

[BMAC615 209]

50 minutes ago, pchapman said:

(As we digress from Opening Altitude rules to those about Wingsuits and about Wing Loadings...)

I believe those topics are very relevant to the discussion.

[Baksteen 84]

4 hours ago, pchapman said:

Interesting to see those rules! -- including how they classify their canopies into levels 1-7.

But, oh man they're strict. At least regarding recent experience. If that calculator does cover all the parts of the Dutch rules, looks like I could have thousands of jumps on my swooping canopy, and not be allowed to fly it unless I had a hundred jumps in the last year. Or similarly, if a national champion swooper took a break for a year, next year he would be down to flying stuff like a Pilot at 1.05 wing loading max until he built his 1-year jump numbers up. Unless he could grovel for a waiver. Bizarre.

(As we digress from Opening Altitude rules to those about Wingsuits and about Wing Loadings...)

No, I probably didn't explain myself well enough. The rules are basically for when you want to downsize.

Look at me: I have a D-licence, ~1050 jumps, 0 in the last 12 months and I estimate that my exit weight is now 105 kg.

I typically jumped a L160 loaded at 1.35.

The calculator would put me on a skymaster or something, but since I already have experience with that canopy, the calculator does not apply. Instead, I would have to discuss with the instructor on duty what my "reintegration plan" is.
Maybe a couple of solos, then some two-way CF with center docks only.

Of course there are still grey areas, such as the infamous jumpers who'd feel restricted by the downsizing rules and go to a neighbouring country to jump the canopy they wanted. They would return triumphant saying they now already jump the canopy so the rules do not apply anymore. Unfortunately for them, the instructor still has the authority can keep them on the ground - no matter their experience/license.

[sfzombie13 321]

4 hours ago, Baksteen said:

No, I probably didn't explain myself well enough. The rules are basically for when you want to downsize.

Look at me: I have a D-licence, ~1050 jumps, 0 in the last 12 months and I estimate that my exit weight is now 105 kg.

I typically jumped a L160 loaded at 1.35.

The calculator would put me on a skymaster or something, but since I already have experience with that canopy, the calculator does not apply. Instead, I would have to discuss with the instructor on duty what my "reintegration plan" is.
Maybe a couple of solos, then some two-way CF with center docks only.

Of course there are still grey areas, such as the infamous jumpers who'd feel restricted by the downsizing rules and go to a neighbouring country to jump the canopy they wanted. They would return triumphant saying they now already jump the canopy so the rules do not apply anymore. Unfortunately for them, the instructor still has the authority can keep them on the ground - no matter their experience/license.

only one question remains.  how many fatalities do the dutch have under canopy?  if it is none, then it is high time the uspa does something similar.  if they refuse, they are not a safety organization.  no other conclusion can be made.  i have my ideas on what the answer to the question is, as well as the rest. 

[wmw999 2,334]

The problem with the number of fatalities is that the number of jumpers overall in Holland is probably small enough that there isn’t a valid statistical comparison. But it’s still an interesting thought. I think the real thing is that the US is so focused on their internal view of profit and personal freedom that giving the chief instructor that much power is unlikely — if nothing else, a few DZOs will just overrule them because they’re pissing the customers off with all those rules

Wendy P. 

[Baksteen 84]

19 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

The problem with the number of fatalities is that the number of jumpers overall in Holland is probably small enough that there isn’t a valid statistical comparison. But it’s still an interesting thought. I think the real thing is that the US is so focused on their internal view of profit and personal freedom that giving the chief instructor that much power is unlikely — if nothing else, a few DZOs will just overrule them because they’re pissing the customers off with all those rules

Wendy P. 

The Netherlands. :-)

In 2019 we made ~86.500 jumps total, with ~175 reported incidents. Two incidents were fatalities.

Two fatalities (or any fatality at that) is a lot for us; but as Wendy indicates there can be no meaningful comparison to the US due to the difference in absolute jump#s. 

[RolandForbes 44]

On 10/1/2022 at 1:24 PM, chuckakers said:

They have a waiver (by jumper name and venue) from USPA that allows them to deploy at 1,000 feet. 

Lol such hypocrisy that they allow 'special Red Bull jumpers' to do this, but not anyone else.

Do as I say, not as I do..... Am I back in Catholic school?

I personally feel that minimum opening altitudes should fall entirely in the purvue of the S&TA. They're the boots on the ground, they should have final word when it comes to enforcing (or not enforcing) minimum opening requirements. 

S&TA's are an order of magnitude more important than the USPA, and should be treated as such. USPA sends you a really shitty magazine once a month, S&TAs derive and define safety culture, give you advice, help you get to new milestones/ratings etc (oh and watches you on every jump to make sure you're not going to kill yourself or your fellow jumpers) just to name a few

The engrained nature of the S&TA makes them much more knowledgable of which jumpers need minimum opening altitudes. For example at our DZ, all wingsuit flyers with less than 100 flights must open by 5k. That's an S&TA imposed rule that largely has benefitted us, and something that in our jump culture likely has prevented at least a few sketchy situations.

Edited October 14, 2022 by RolandForbes

[chuckakers 419]

1 hour ago, RolandForbes said:

Lol such hypocrisy that they allow 'special Red Bull jumpers' to do this, but not anyone else.

Not true. This was discussed when the board debated the Red Bull waiver request. It was clearly stated that a waiver would be considered for any person or group that could demonstrate appropriate competency for the waiver being requested.

There is no person or group that gets special treatment. Each request for a waiver is considered based solely on its merit.

[sfzombie13 321]

2 hours ago, Baksteen said:

The Netherlands. :-)

In 2019 we made ~86.500 jumps total, with ~175 reported incidents. Two incidents were fatalities.

Two fatalities (or any fatality at that) is a lot for us; but as Wendy indicates there can be no meaningful comparison to the US due to the difference in absolute jump#s. 

sure you can compare them.  86500 jumps and 2 fatalities is 0.0023%.  sure looks like someone is doing something right.  uspa reports that the us had 0.26% fatality to jump ratio in 2021.  i may not be a statistician, but looking at how many zeroes are in front of the dutch rate, i would say they are safer overall, per 100k jumps at least.  how many tandem fatalities total did they have?  if i hear none, then they absolutely are doing something safer than us.  maybe that "nanny state" saves lives, and i am all for that, no matter how much i hate being told what i can and cannot do.

[grimmie 179]

Life altering landing injuries are just as bad, if not worse, than a fatality.

It seems that statistic gets overlooked in safety discussions.

[bdb2004 28]

3 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

sure you can compare them.  86500 jumps and 2 fatalities is 0.0023%.  sure looks like someone is doing something right.  uspa reports that the us had 0.26% fatality to jump ratio in 2021.  i may not be a statistician, but looking at how many zeroes are in front of the dutch rate, i would say they are safer overall, per 100k jumps at least.  how many tandem fatalities total did they have?  if i hear none, then they absolutely are doing something safer than us.  maybe that "nanny state" saves lives, and i am all for that, no matter how much i hate being told what i can and cannot do.

No.  I am a statistician, so here we go:

You computed the percentage of fatalities.  USPA reported the rate of fatalities per 100,000 jumps.  To appropriately compare, you would need to put both on the same scale: Netherlands, 0.0023% fatality rate vs US, .00028% per the USPA website.  Alternatively, Netherlands 2.3 fatalities per 100,000 jumps vs US, .28 fatalities per 100,000 jumps.  

These may or may not be statistically significant, and even if they are, they may or may not be meaningful.  Low base rate comparisons are challenging in the best of circumstances, which these are not. Ultimately I would guess we would need a lot more data to really make any solid comparisons.  

 

(Edited because I kept making simple arithmetic errors.....my bad)

 

 

Edited October 14, 2022 by bdb2004

[sfzombie13 321]

46 minutes ago, bdb2004 said:

No.  I am a statistician, so here we go:

You computed the percentage of fatalities.  USPA reported the rate of fatalities per 100,000 jumps.  To appropriately compare, you would need to put both on the same scale: Netherlands, 0.0023% fatality rate vs US, .00028% per the USPA website.  Alternatively, Netherlands 2.3 fatalities per 100,000 jumps vs US, .28 fatalities per 100,000 jumps.  

These may or may not be statistically significant, and even if they are, they may or may not be meaningful.  Low base rate comparisons are challenging in the best of circumstances, which these are not. Ultimately I would guess we would need a lot more data to really make any solid comparisons.  

 

(Edited because I kept making simple arithmetic errors.....my bad)

 

 

check my math again please.  i get 0.0023% in netherlands and 0.23 from uspa site. 

 

i didn't have the numbers to do the math from uspa, that's why i just took theirs

Edited October 14, 2022 by sfzombie13