3 3
JoeWeber

Canopy Piloting Regulation (split from Fatality Georgia 3/18/2023)

Recommended Posts

Just now, gowlerk said:

At least we have mods who will come along later tonight or tomorrow morning and clean up this thread.

Dude you are not who I thought you were.

Have you ever read any of the following? Maybe where I fail you is in trying to explain why I think as I do before stating my position. No matter, take 4.

No and no. But I am to where I don't think we should be offering the usual thoughts and prayers when they inevitably occur nor that USPA should be so supportive of the practice. In the old days we had excellent low pullers who had amazing depth perception and incredible hand eye coordination. They are still with us while those who only thought they did are gone.  Another nasty feature of hook turn fatalities is that, unlike a simple bounce that most often happens away from any spectators, hook turn fatalities too often happen traumatically and quite violently in front of innocent bystanders. And they're messy, PTSD causing events, too. In that sense, unlike a standard Freefall fatality from the usual, expected, and known causes hook turn fatalities are somewhat more of a selfish, self centered event.

So, generally speaking, I think they're best learned away from regular DZ's under the heavy guidance of skilled professionals who do not accept as a candidate every hopeful.

I hope that helps.

Or this:

 

Take a deep breath, Chuck; my logic says nothing of the sort. I get it that CP is a big deal for you personally. I get it that the top people are amazing and the competitions can be awe inspiring. Great. I also think that allowing hook turns and encouraging pushing the envelope in a DZ environment is a bad choice. Consequently, like many operations we have limited the amount of turns allowed and put strict rules in place. As you so rightly observed hooking it is a damn dangerous thing to do. Your personal, and USPA's apparently, acceptable rate of attrition against some perceived rate of return is what it is. I personally believe the injuries and fatalities from swooping aren't worth it: simple 180's in a controlled location, and then with permission, are fun enough.

 

Or this:

Thank you. I've seen a few like that, sometimes with out any control input after the low turn. I've often wondered if it wasn't an error at the level of the brain, sort of like when a highly experienced aircraft pilot land gear up. Often they'll tell you afterwards that they saw all three lights in the green. I don't doubt they did, in their minds. Our lives are complicated and if we did need to relearn everything every day we'd get nowhere. So instead, maybe we see or feel what has always been and continue on into the ground. 

 

Or this:

There we have a point of disagreement. Skydiving is a sport based on a business model, not random acts by individuals unrelated to a whole. To be frank, laying off a fatality, or worse, to "personal responsibility" is a way for DZO's and USPA to avoid a hard truth. I say the responsible party was who ever was absolutely in charge of the event, probably the DZO. (you know, you)

Or this:

The bottom line is we can do a lot to mitigate risk which translates to fewer injuries and fatalities. In my opinion that is Job 1 for both DZO's and USPA. Just throwing up your hands and accepting whatever outcome happens is not a part of my religion. My issue with USPA is not that I want Swooping banned or yada, yada, yada. I will restate my position: the injuries and fatalities we get from swooping are a worse thing because too many are in front of innocent people not people who foolishly believe they are taking their own risks. Consequently, I think the practice isn't a good fit at a public DZ. USPA, and Chuck, think it's a fit because they want more swoopers and DZ's, where the carnage starts, fill the pipeline to the top competitions where it is all art and beauty.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

Some might argue that pulling low is equally or more fun than a high performance landing. But, SOMEHOW there was a culture shift over the past 30 years were pulling low is seen as too high risk/dumb not to be done.

One could argue that pulling low went away due to changing gear rather than changing culture. The prevalence of AAD's, canopies that take a thousand feet to open rather than a few hundred, line twists often requiring a cutaway rather than be a momentary nuisance. One could argue that hook turns are the new low pull.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Dude you are not who I thought you were.

Have you ever read any of the following? Maybe where I fail you is in trying to explain why I think as I do before stating my position. No matter, take 4.

No and no. But I am to where I don't think we should be offering the usual thoughts and prayers when they inevitably occur nor that USPA should be so supportive of the practice. In the old days we had excellent low pullers who had amazing depth perception and incredible hand eye coordination. They are still with us while those who only thought they did are gone.  Another nasty feature of hook turn fatalities is that, unlike a simple bounce that most often happens away from any spectators, hook turn fatalities too often happen traumatically and quite violently in front of innocent bystanders. And they're messy, PTSD causing events, too. In that sense, unlike a standard Freefall fatality from the usual, expected, and known causes hook turn fatalities are somewhat more of a selfish, self centered event.

So, generally speaking, I think they're best learned away from regular DZ's under the heavy guidance of skilled professionals who do not accept as a candidate every hopeful.

I hope that helps.

Or this:

 

Take a deep breath, Chuck; my logic says nothing of the sort. I get it that CP is a big deal for you personally. I get it that the top people are amazing and the competitions can be awe inspiring. Great. I also think that allowing hook turns and encouraging pushing the envelope in a DZ environment is a bad choice. Consequently, like many operations we have limited the amount of turns allowed and put strict rules in place. As you so rightly observed hooking it is a damn dangerous thing to do. Your personal, and USPA's apparently, acceptable rate of attrition against some perceived rate of return is what it is. I personally believe the injuries and fatalities from swooping aren't worth it: simple 180's in a controlled location, and then with permission, are fun enough.

 

Or this:

Thank you. I've seen a few like that, sometimes with out any control input after the low turn. I've often wondered if it wasn't an error at the level of the brain, sort of like when a highly experienced aircraft pilot land gear up. Often they'll tell you afterwards that they saw all three lights in the green. I don't doubt they did, in their minds. Our lives are complicated and if we did need to relearn everything every day we'd get nowhere. So instead, maybe we see or feel what has always been and continue on into the ground. 

 

Or this:

There we have a point of disagreement. Skydiving is a sport based on a business model, not random acts by individuals unrelated to a whole. To be frank, laying off a fatality, or worse, to "personal responsibility" is a way for DZO's and USPA to avoid a hard truth. I say the responsible party was who ever was absolutely in charge of the event, probably the DZO. (you know, you)

Or this:

The bottom line is we can do a lot to mitigate risk which translates to fewer injuries and fatalities. In my opinion that is Job 1 for both DZO's and USPA. Just throwing up your hands and accepting whatever outcome happens is not a part of my religion. My issue with USPA is not that I want Swooping banned or yada, yada, yada. I will restate my position: the injuries and fatalities we get from swooping are a worse thing because too many are in front of innocent people not people who foolishly believe they are taking their own risks. Consequently, I think the practice isn't a good fit at a public DZ. USPA, and Chuck, think it's a fit because they want more swoopers and DZ's, where the carnage starts, fill the pipeline to the top competitions where it is all art and beauty.

 

 

 

 

 

So, to put all of that into a set of rules would it be fair to say you want turns over 180 banned from USPA DZs except for training sites away from the public and you want even 180 turns to landing restricted to those who have been vetted? Including I assume yourself because you have the skill and experience in spades?

These are serious questions. Saying something is not a good fit is beating around the bush. If you want change you need to clearly state what change it is that you want. As far as "180s being fun enough" goes I would simply say that the classic hook turn was the original killer landing that started off the trend in the early 90s. 

Since you are an active DZO who seems to be in day to day control of your business I have to ask what are the policies at your DZ? What example do you set in your landing patterns and what are those of your instructional staff who are very influential for new jumpers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

Sure, number one is for USPA to ban canopy piloting competitions at USPA dropzones and immediately disband the National CP team and no longer use CP as a promotional tool.

Okay, that is a starting point. But it hardly solves the problem. Should PD dissolve it's CP team and stop selling canopies designed with fast landings as their main purpose? Should landing discipline of 90 degree turns only become the rule? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gowlerk said:

So, to put all of that into a set of rules would it be fair to say you want turns over 180 banned from USPA DZs except for training sites away from the public and you want even 180 turns to landing restricted to those who have been vetted? Including I assume yourself because you have the skill and experience in spades?

These are serious questions. Saying something is not a good fit is beating around the bush. If you want change you need to clearly state what change it is that you want. As far as "180s being fun enough" goes I would simply say that the classic hook turn was the original killer landing that started off the trend in the early 90s. 

Since you are an active DZO who seems to be in day to day control of your business I have to ask what are the policies at your DZ? What example do you set in your landing patterns and what are those of your instructional staff who are very influential for new jumpers. 

No, I don't want turns above 180 degrees banned from all USPA DZ's. I think they are a bad idea at most DZ's for reasons previously stated. Like others, I came around to restricting turns to no more than 180 mostly because for most people that's fun enough and, regardless of the memes, seemed to not create excess casualties. And, yes, that's in the vetted, "HP" landing area that is separated from the main landing area by a  runway. In our main landing area the limit is 90 degrees and traffic patterns are expected on both sides.

Understand I didn't just come out of the gate trying to destroy CP before it could get off the ground. We were early adopters. Over two decades ago we built what at the time was the largest swoop pond on the west coast: 200' X 60' X 4' deep. Truly a thing of beauty, it was. There is even nice triptych of me chowing on a Stiletto somewhere. We were all about it. The idea was to make CP safer; that swoopers would do the big turn in such a way that if they blew it they would at least hit water. Swoopers needed to show real skill before doing a coast to coast. But they were selfish and turned me into a cop. The most frustrating were the ones who practiced along side the pond so if they chowed they wouldn't get their rig and Cypres wet. And chow they did. Transient jumpers simply flouted the rules and moved on.

Those are my rules and that's my history. Others can do as they choose based on their tolerance and situation. And it should not be a surprise that I think USPA shouldn't be overtly supportive of the practice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

One could argue that pulling low went away due to changing gear rather than changing culture. The prevalence of AAD's, canopies that take a thousand feet to open rather than a few hundred, line twists often requiring a cutaway rather than be a momentary nuisance. One could argue that hook turns are the new low pull.

Nah, pulling low would get you grounded and you’d get a lecture about how dumb it is to pull low before CYPRES’ were the norm - at least that was the case at the FL DZs I was jumping at during the early 90s. So, USPA and DZs collectively had enough of people bouncing from low pulls and began cracking down on low openings before then. Now, 30 years later, most skydivers talk about pulling at 3k as low, LOL. That’s the result of a culture change.

(As a side note, I believe Tom Piras’ death in Dec of ‘92 was very influential the wide-spread adoption of the CYPRES throughout the mid/late 90s. Ironically, Piras was also highly responsible for popularizing hook turn landings.)

As for @gowlerk’s questions, as long as high performance landings and “Canopy Piloting” are promoted as “This is what the best in the world do, these ‘athletes’ are demonstrating the pinnacle of skydiving” it will be viewed downstream as something to mimic and strive for.

If the culture of the skydiving community is one that admires high performance landings with small canopies, the skydiving community will continue to lose people to high performance landings. USPA can’t promote canopy piloting competitions in its current format and simultaneously promote a goal of zero deaths because the two are mutually exclusive.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

If the culture of the skydiving community is one that admires high performance landings with small canopies, the skydiving community will continue to lose people to high performance landings. USPA can’t promote canopy piloting competitions in its current format and simultaneously promote a goal of zero deaths because the two are mutually exclusive.

I can not and do not disagree with this or the rest of your post for that matter. It very nicely wraps up the problem. Many of the most active skilled and influential jumpers today engage in HP landings. Many are also BASE jumpers, but at least that activity is done away from the public eye. Often these are the same people that are doing tandems and AFF instruction. And they have a lot of influence on the USPA BoD. Clearly most of the sport still continues to be willing to accept and allow participants to take that risk while also developing coaching programs that are a double edged sword. They teach skills that help reduce the accident rate but they also give a false sense that anyone can learn it if they just have the desire and the cash to pay for the equipment jumps and training. 

Let's not forget that skydiving is and has always been run by risk takers for risk takers. There is no redeeming social value in it and that is why I am hesitant to tell others what risks they can take. We talk about the trauma inflicted on us and sometimes the public by witnessing landing mishaps up close and personal. At the same time we push waivers at 90 year old passengers, pretend they are students, and hope their skin doesn't tear open in the breeze and they don't fracture limbs on landing. All to pay for bigger and better airplanes that we could never afford otherwise. There is plenty of moral hazard to go around in this game we call a sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Okay, that is a starting point. But it hardly solves the problem. Should PD dissolve it's CP team and stop selling canopies designed with fast landings as their main purpose? Should landing discipline of 90 degree turns only become the rule? 

 

Oddly, buying hot canopies has sometimes become a way to try to get some fun back in landings, given all the restrictions on high performance landings at DZ's these days.

At the DZ I'm at, it is 90s only when jumping from the turbine, although one can  pretty much make a 180 which is just a couple 90s in a row.

So an experienced jumper often wants a really high performance canopy where they can at least have some speed and fun out of a 90 or 180, since one can't do a 270 or 360 or whatever. My old Icarus FX at 2.0 loading seems pretty boring in those conditions.

PS - That was a great anecdote about Mr. Safety, Bryan Burke, enjoying a sick swoop from time to time.

 

Edited by pchapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pchapman said:

 

Oddly, buying hot canopies has sometimes become a way to try to get some fun back in landings, given all the restrictions on high performance landings at DZ's these days.

At the DZ I'm at, it is 90s only when jumping from the turbine, although one can  pretty much make a 180 which is just a couple 90s in a row.

So an experienced jumper often wants a really high performance canopy where they can at least have some speed and fun out of a 90 or 180, since one can't do a 270 or 360 or whatever. My old Icarus FX at 2.0 loading seems pretty boring in those conditions.

 

 

Ah yes, the law of unintended consequences strikes again. Restricting the pattern to prevent collisions is not the same as outlawing big turns. Those are two different issues as you know. Serious big turns absolutely need to be separated from the regular slow safe traffic that issues forward from large turbines doing FF loads. Either by time as in a separate pass or aircraft or by landing area.  Or ideally both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

They teach skills that help reduce the accident rate but they also give a false sense that anyone can learn it if they just have the desire and the cash to pay for the equipment jumps and training. 

That is a great double-click down into the problem - and a great explanation of why it won’t get solved anytime, soon.

1 hour ago, pchapman said:

buying hot canopies has sometimes become a way to try to get some fun back in landings, given all the restrictions on high performance landings at DZ's these days.

When DZs restrict turns to 90º, people just do stall surges. Why? Because a sick swoop is a good indicator of the pecking order. Remember, the skydiving culture is “the person who can do the most bad ass swoop is the most bad ass person on the DZ. If a DZ’s swoop pond was out behind a bunch a trees beyond eyesight of the packing mat and spectator viewing area, *almost no one would use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

No, I don't want turns above 180 degrees banned from all USPA DZ's. I think they are a bad idea at most DZ's for reasons previously stated. Like others, I came around to restricting turns to no more than 180 mostly because for most people that's fun enough and, regardless of the memes, seemed to not create excess casualties. And, yes, that's in the vetted, "HP" landing area that is separated from the main landing area by a  runway. In our main landing area the limit is 90 degrees and traffic patterns are expected on both sides.

Understand I didn't just come out of the gate trying to destroy CP before it could get off the ground. We were early adopters. Over two decades ago we built what at the time was the largest swoop pond on the west coast: 200' X 60' X 4' deep. Truly a thing of beauty, it was. There is even nice triptych of me chowing on a Stiletto somewhere. We were all about it. The idea was to make CP safer; that swoopers would do the big turn in such a way that if they blew it they would at least hit water. Swoopers needed to show real skill before doing a coast to coast. But they were selfish and turned me into a cop. The most frustrating were the ones who practiced along side the pond so if they chowed they wouldn't get their rig and Cypres wet. And chow they did. Transient jumpers simply flouted the rules and moved on.

Those are my rules and that's my history. Others can do as they choose based on their tolerance and situation. And it should not be a surprise that I think USPA shouldn't be overtly supportive of the practice.

Hi Joe,

For anyone who wonders, I can assure them that the rules are enforced at SDO.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a big topic everyone is missing in this thread and the original one is that over the past 10 years, high performance canopy culture has had a massive success in training canopy pilots and improving safety of an inherently dangerous activity. The number of 'ultra' class canopies has increased and deaths are way down. I think USPA has played a critical role in this.

@JoeWeber If we want to ban everything that has some increased risk to a DZ business model, lets stop jumpers over 60 from jumping. Stop swooping. Stop basically everything beyond a C license. Its the D license folks that are killing themselves. Older folks who have medical emergencies and improper emergency procedures. Your point about those not happening in front of spectators is noted, and mostly specific to swooping indeed.

I grew up in a club DZ culture at home in Verona NY and in Malone NY. My dad was a DZO/rigger/instructor/S&TA and I packed parachutes for a club well before my 16th birthday. I myself am an instructor and former S&TA. I've seen some things. The business side of operating a DZ has certainly complicated things - and I can point to most of the DZ's on the west coast getting rid of their swoop ponds 2010 - 2015, it was bad for business and military contracts.

My point is, things are changing in a positive direction - and with the support  and guidance of USPA. Separating the landing areas by space or time has had a huge improvement. Making canopy coaching cool has made an improvement. My home DZ has a massive amount of swoopers and the new jumpers respect the process, effort and dedication it takes to get to that level.

As DZO you get to do whatever you want at your DZ. I think the guidance and support of USPA for a small but growing sector of canopy piloting is critical. And it continues to make a difference, whether its supported by everyone or not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jacketsdb23 said:

I think a big topic everyone is missing in this thread and the original one is that over the past 10 years, high performance canopy culture has had a massive success in training canopy pilots and improving safety of an inherently dangerous activity. The number of 'ultra' class canopies has increased and deaths are way down. I think USPA has played a critical role in this.

@JoeWeber If we want to ban everything that has some increased risk to a DZ business model, lets stop jumpers over 60 from jumping. Stop swooping. Stop basically everything beyond a C license. Its the D license folks that are killing themselves. Older folks who have medical emergencies and improper emergency procedures. Your point about those not happening in front of spectators is noted, and mostly specific to swooping indeed.

I grew up in a club DZ culture at home in Verona NY and in Malone NY. My dad was a DZO/rigger/instructor/S&TA and I packed parachutes for a club well before my 16th birthday. I myself am an instructor and former S&TA. I've seen some things. The business side of operating a DZ has certainly complicated things - and I can point to most of the DZ's on the west coast getting rid of their swoop ponds 2010 - 2015, it was bad for business and military contracts.

My point is, things are changing in a positive direction - and with the support  and guidance of USPA. Separating the landing areas by space or time has had a huge improvement. Making canopy coaching cool has made an improvement. My home DZ has a massive amount of swoopers and the new jumpers respect the process, effort and dedication it takes to get to that level.

As DZO you get to do whatever you want at your DZ. I think the guidance and support of USPA for a small but growing sector of canopy piloting is critical. And it continues to make a difference, whether its supported by everyone or not.

 

Marcel,

Please try to understand that the idea of banning jumpers over 60 isn't resonating with me. Nor do I want to ban all risk. I banned swooping at my DZ for the reward of having a safer environment overall. It has been a success. It has also had the advantage of our seeing fewer rule breakers wander by. If you or anyone else wants to open a swoop only DZ, have at it and good luck. I mean that. So here's a little pearl to consider when you are getting ready to open and are pricing your product: low passes with swoopers costs the DZ money. If the pilot safely configures the aircraft to level flight and slows down as they should one or two swoopers (who expect cheap jumps because they are getting out low) actually adds 2-3 minutes to the climb to full altitude of even fast turbine aircraft. That's two or three minutes that cost +/-$20 a minute. Do that 10 times a day and that aircraft will fly two less profitable loads that day. Worse, if it's loads to 5K all day every one of those landings is a cycle or part of a cycle deducted from the life of many of the life limited parts that the aircraft has, those are like $20 per landing. So thank your stars that too many DZO's who like swoopers also suck at math.

 

Joe

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

(who expect cheap jumps because they are getting out low)

My understanding is that most turbine DZs who drop swoopers out low no long give any discount on the ticket price. I can see by your point that even so the extra jump run still costs them at least some time and fuel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I think the point I was trying to make is that USPA's interest and support of swooping is making a difference for the DZ's that decide to support it. Businesses that don't see it fit in their business model can eliminate it like you have. Not everyone has the bottom line as the driving factor. Everyone wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jacketsdb23 said:

Fair enough. I think the point I was trying to make is that USPA's interest and support of swooping is making a difference for the DZ's that decide to support it. Businesses that don't see it fit in their business model can eliminate it like you have. Not everyone has the bottom line as the driving factor. Everyone wins.

You're right, the history of skydiving has many situations where money from outside the DZ, from some interesting sources I'm informed, made things happen. Trust fund kids and other stuff comes to mind. In truth, I'm not a one trick pony with the DZ. I've had a fair sized Jump Aircraft Leasing company, a Turbine Engine Leasing company, an Aircraft trading gig, and my real estate stuff etc. Many times that coin went into the DZ to satisfy my most important desires. No regrets, far from it. But the bottom line is because of that experience I'm familiar with the real numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jacketsdb23 said:

high performance canopy culture has had a massive success in training canopy pilots and improving safety of an inherently dangerous activity. The number of 'ultra' class canopies has increased and deaths are way down

What evidence are you basing this assertion on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

The number of people jumping petra, peregrine and similar canopies is up from say 2013. Look at florida comp and national competitor numbers from same time period. All trending up. If you look at swooping deaths or landing deaths in the same time period its trending down. 

Not perfect and admittedly some of this is estimating but you can look at landing deaths compiled by USPA.  Trending down. Could probably track down canopy sales by talking with mfgs.

ETA: Covid could play a factor in swinging the numbers...i.e. number of incidence per jumps for example. 

Edited by jacketsdb23
Adding Covid caveat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

Nah

Yah. As in the other thread, not THE reason, AN influence. And other people's reaction to an act does not determine the reason for that act. Anyway, incidental point, carry on.

 

For the record, I believe in a person's right to choose, and that includes DZO's. I also believe people should shoulder the responsibility for their choices, and that includes spectators. I realize neither of those are popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jacketsdb23 said:

Just read april 2023 fatality report for 2022 and looks like 2022 was a bad year for intentional turn fatalities. Years prior look better. 

Overall my sentiment is we are making progress. 

20230331_192758.jpg

You can’t see that and honestly believe “We are making progress.” That is a giant leap backward. 

USPA can’t promote canopy piloting competitions in its current format and simultaneously promote a goal of zero deaths because the two are mutually exclusive.

image.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

I also believe people should shoulder the responsibility for their choices, and that includes spectators.

We strive mightily, and spend buckets of money, to show that skydiving is a safe and accessible activity for most people. It's not a perfectly safe activity which is widely known and accepted by the general population. In fact, that's a good thing: we're the "big" one the bucket list usually and that makes it an even better experience for most new jumpers. All good. Now, you might argue that DZO's and experienced jumpers should know that hell can hit any day and you'd be right. But to argue that unaware spectators should shoulder responsibility for seeing a hook turn fatality when they have zero notion of what that even may be is being specious in the extreme. DZO's can ban it and greatly lower the chance of one happening, jumpers can simply not do them intentionally, allowed or not, and greatly lower their chance of being injured or killed doing one. But unless you are arguing that when reservations are taken for first jumps the prospective skydiver should be advised to tell their friends and family what a hook turn fatality is and how seeing one can traumatize them for life you really have no basis for your proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on this, you have every right to swoop if that is what you want to do.  Skydiving is 1. an inherently dangerous activity; and 2. attracts individualist types that will consistently refuse to be stopped in the pursuit of what makes them come alive.

Isn't that why we're all here?  Skydiving is certainly not safe, but we all do it anyway.  We try to make it safer in all the ways that we can without taking the soul out of it.  For some folks canopy piloting is the soul of it.  We have no right to take that from them any more than the FAA should be able to stop all of skydiving.. or any more than DZOs should have a "right" (morally speaking) to ban jumpers over 60.  

I think that's the big difference between this conversation and any concerns around low pulls.  Pulling low does not change the nature of skydiving.  Those extra seconds are not magical and different than the rest of the freefall.  At best it adds a few extra seconds to a formation trying to turn extra points.  In this way banning low pulls doesn't take the soul out of what we're here to do.  So I don't think it's a fair comparison to swooping for many folks.

However there is something we can and should do - we should make a recommendation similar to the camera recommendation that limits at what stage in a skydiver's career they should begin training to swoop.  The recommendation could limit canopy size, or degrees of turn onto final, or both.  This is a reasonable thing to do I think - and an often overlooked cause of injury in younger jumpers.  

While I don't think we have a right to take the soul out of jumping for folks who find that soul in the discipline of canopy piloting.  I think that delaying those folks who rapidly progress onto unreasonable wing loadings too young to understand what they're doing is completely fair.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DonnellyB said:

My take on this, you have every right to swoop if that is what you want to do.  Skydiving is 1. an inherently dangerous activity; and 2. attracts individualist types that will consistently refuse to be stopped in the pursuit of what makes them come alive.

Isn't that why we're all here?  Skydiving is certainly not safe, but we all do it anyway.  We try to make it safer in all the ways that we can without taking the soul out of it.  For some folks canopy piloting is the soul of it.  We have no right to take that from them any more than the FAA should be able to stop all of skydiving.. or any more than DZOs should have a "right" (morally speaking) to ban jumpers over 60.  

I think that's the big difference between this conversation and any concerns around low pulls.  Pulling low does not change the nature of skydiving.  Those extra seconds are not magical and different than the rest of the freefall.  At best it adds a few extra seconds to a formation trying to turn extra points.  In this way banning low pulls doesn't take the soul out of what we're here to do.  So I don't think it's a fair comparison to swooping for many folks.

However there is something we can and should do - we should make a recommendation similar to the camera recommendation that limits at what stage in a skydiver's career they should begin training to swoop.  The recommendation could limit canopy size, or degrees of turn onto final, or both.  This is a reasonable thing to do I think - and an often overlooked cause of injury in younger jumpers.  

While I don't think we have a right to take the soul out of jumping for folks who find that soul in the discipline of canopy piloting.  I think that delaying those folks who rapidly progress onto unreasonable wing loadings too young to understand what they're doing is completely fair.  

Have you ever been at terminal <1.5k?

  • 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.

3 3