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

[DonnellyB 2]

Just now, BMAC615 said:

Have you ever been at terminal <1.5k?

There's always BASE jumping

[BMAC615 205]

11 minutes ago, DonnellyB said:

There's always BASE jumping

If that’s your logic, then there’s always speed flying.

[dudeman17 267]

2 hours ago, DonnellyB said:

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.

I am not here to advocate for (intentionally) pulling low, but you clearly have no idea why it occurs.

 

2 hours ago, DonnellyB said:

There's always BASE jumping

Very few BASE jumps result in being at terminal.

Edited April 2, 2023 by dudeman17

[dudeman17 267]

14 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

...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.  ...you really have no basis for your proposition.

I disagree. To the average person of reasonable intellect looking at skydiving, it is readily apparent what the potential outcomes might be. Indeed, many whuffos regard skydiving as more dangerous than it actually is. Watching a swoop landing, it is blatantly apparent that it is low, it's fast, and if someone screws it up it's going to be ugly. To regard these people as innocent deer-in-the-headlight types who have no clue what they might see is an insult to the intelligence of the general population.

[base615 77]

What a shitshow this whuffo thread is, right from the get go suggesting big turns be banned while advocating for the most dangerous turn of all - the 180.

In Australia, we’ve had 9 tandem fatalities in the last few years and exactly zero swoop comp fatalities. Maybe we should ban tandems instead.

We have a rule of 90s only on height loads while big turns and pond can be done on hop and pops (a ticket costs the same regardless of where you get out). You also need to have done a Flight-1 309 course before being considered for pond approval. As a result, almost every load does a hop and pop pass and we often have several passes of hop and pops and a small number going to altitude. We also have a large number of jumpers undertaking regular high performance canopy coaching. Do things properly and it can be done safely, don’t just ban things you don’t understand.

Edited April 2, 2023 by base615

[DonnellyB 2]

 

[gowlerk 1,903]

Nothin' is quite like a group of jumpers dividing up into different disciplines and dissing each other as unsafe. I've been there many times myself. Be safe, try not to get hurt, and if you own the toys then you get to make the rules. Which will always be and must be a compromise of some sort.

[sfzombie13 307]

10 hours ago, DonnellyB said:

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.

that sounds exactly the same as why some folks used to pull low. 

[jacketsdb23 45]

On 4/1/2023 at 6:13 AM, BMAC615 said:

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.

Yeah 2022 was a bad year. I agree its difficult to promote zero deaths but its a good goal. I still believe the amount of increased canopy coaching is beneficial and we have much more canopy awareness than before. We arent swooping through standard traffic patterns anymore and I personally have seen better progression. The performance level of canopies continue to improve. Petras, peregrines, leias, and  valkyries to name a few are popular and skill set of pilots overall are getting better. USPA has had a hand in this so that should be recognized. USPA ignoring this sector of the sport would not be beneficial.

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, jacketsdb23 said:

USPA ignoring this sector of the sport would not be beneficial.

I may also be needed to remember that CP is an international sport with a world championship. USPA believe it or not isn't the only organization that involved. If you want to play in the world you need to count the FAI as well.

[sfzombie13 307]

speaking of that, perhaps we should get together with austrailia's governing body and exchange notes since they had a lot of tandem fatalities and we had the swooping fatalities it seems.  isn't that what these discussions are for, learning from those who are doing better and emulating them?

[BMAC615 205]

9 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

speaking of that, perhaps we should get together with austrailia's governing body and exchange notes since they had a lot of tandem fatalities and we had the swooping fatalities it seems.  isn't that what these discussions are for, learning from those who are doing better and emulating them?

Worse - USPA DZs had 3 tandem fatalities from intentional turns. 

[BMAC615 205]

20 hours ago, base615 said:

What a shitshow this whuffo thread is, right from the get go suggesting big turns be banned while advocating for the most dangerous turn of all - the 180.

In Australia, we’ve had 9 tandem fatalities in the last few years and exactly zero swoop comp fatalities. Maybe we should ban tandems instead.

We have a rule of 90s only on height loads while big turns and pond can be done on hop and pops (a ticket costs the same regardless of where you get out). You also need to have done a Flight-1 309 course before being considered for pond approval. As a result, almost every load does a hop and pop pass and we often have several passes of hop and pops and a small number going to altitude. We also have a large number of jumpers undertaking regular high performance canopy coaching. Do things properly and it can be done safely, don’t just ban things you don’t understand.

Sure, high performance landings can be done without injury or death if done properly, but it will never be safe. The level of risk involved is equal to pulling <1.5k and BASE jumping. Your suggestion that those of us who are voicing concern simply don’t understand swooping - is ignorant at best.

The injuries and deaths happen when high performance landings aren’t done properly (duh). People are flying themselves into the ground because they couldn’t do it properly every time.

If you haven’t already, read the 2022 Fatality Report. Eight people died from intentional low turns. Three of them were tandem passengers. This should have sent shock waves throughout the skydiving community. Instead, we got the same ol’, “Whelp, that’s a shame, but we’re making progress!”

Edited April 3, 2023 by BMAC615

[BMAC615 205]

On 4/1/2023 at 11:36 PM, dudeman17 said:

I disagree. To the average person of reasonable intellect looking at skydiving, it is readily apparent what the potential outcomes might be. Indeed, many whuffos regard skydiving as more dangerous than it actually is. Watching a swoop landing, it is blatantly apparent that it is low, it's fast, and if someone screws it up it's going to be ugly. To regard these people as innocent deer-in-the-headlight types who have no clue what they might see is an insult to the intelligence of the general population.

Showing up to a hometown football game and watching some guy without a PRO rating drill himself into the ground was not something the crowd agreed to. Further, friends and family showing up to a DZ to watch a loved one make their first tandem skydive and witnessing an instructor do a 180 toggle turn at 100 ft, killing the passenger is not something anyone agreed to.

 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

5 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

Showing up to a hometown football game and watching some guy without a PRO rating drill himself into the ground was not something the crowd agreed to. Further, friends and family showing up to a DZ to watch a loved one make their first tandem skydive and witnessing an instructor do a 180 toggle turn at 100 ft, killing the passenger is not something anyone agreed to.

 

That this is not obvious to all at the first glance shows how irrational the "personal responsibility" crowd can be; the same crowd, by the by, who argued against using a Cypres because it might fire during a big turn after a skydive. 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

On 4/2/2023 at 4:38 AM, base615 said:

Do things properly and it can be done safely, don’t just ban things you don’t understand.

Thanks for the advice but I'm pretty sure I do understand. I keep hearing that 180's are the most dangerous turn of all but it's only from those who think doing big turns is safer. At my DZ we've seen it all from minor scrapes to broken bones and backs to near fatalities to a fatality from jumpers fucking up big turns. And some were damn good at swooping, too. Since we banned anything above 180's (we also have an absolute same landing pattern rule) the scorecard is zero. 

[BMAC615 205]

On 4/1/2023 at 11:22 PM, dudeman17 said:

Very few BASE jumps result in being at terminal.

That’s not true, unless you consider wingsuits not terminal.

[base615 77]

7 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Thanks for the advice but I'm pretty sure I do understand. I keep hearing that 180's are the most dangerous turn of all but it's only from those who think doing big turns is safer. At my DZ we've seen it all from minor scrapes to broken bones and backs to near fatalities to a fatality from jumpers fucking up big turns. And some were damn good at swooping, too. Since we banned anything above 180's (we also have an absolute same landing pattern rule) the scorecard is zero. 

Luck not judgment.

[kleggo 138]

On 4/1/2023 at 6:24 PM, DonnellyB said:

  
 Pulling low does not change the nature of skydiving.  Those extra seconds are not magical and different than the rest of the freefall.  

I'll bet that you've never been in terminal freefall below 1500 feet.

Trust me, there are visual differences.

Magical? That's up to the observer.

 

[kleggo 138]

On 4/1/2023 at 6:32 PM, BMAC615 said:

Have you ever been at terminal <1.5k?

funny, just read your comment after I posted mine.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

1 hour ago, kleggo said:

I'll bet that you've never been in terminal freefall below 1500 feet.

Trust me, there are visual differences.

Magical? That's up to the observer.

 

Hi kleggo,

BTDT

Nothing magical about it - it is simply stupid.

Jerry Baumchen

[dudeman17 267]

22 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

Showing up to a hometown football game and watching some guy without a PRO rating drill himself into the ground was not something the crowd agreed to. Further, friends and family showing up to a DZ to watch a loved one make their first tandem skydive and witnessing an instructor do a 180 toggle turn at 100 ft, killing the passenger is not something anyone agreed to.

I agree with that. My point was in reference to the spectator who shows up at the drop zone and decides to check out the swoop area, which was a scenario earlier in the discussion. I think that was also readily apparent. I agree that swoops should not occur at demos and most certainly not on tandems.  ...

 

13 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

That’s not true, unless you consider wingsuits not terminal.

Wingsuits are a whole different animal. Yeah, with wingsuits people maintain 'terminal freefall' for extended periods of time mere feet off of the ground. Again, clearly apparent, not what was being discussed.

I've said this before in general, and I think I've said it to you in particular, some of you people just like to argue for the sake of argument, arguing against points that were not being made, to the point where it is pointless to have a discussion with you. Oh well, such is the state of the internet...

[BMAC615 205]

1 hour ago, dudeman17 said:

I agree with that. My point was in reference to the spectator who shows up at the drop zone and decides to check out the swoop area, which was a scenario earlier in the discussion. I think that was also readily apparent. I agree that swoops should not occur at demos and most certainly not on tandems.  ...

 

Wingsuits are a whole different animal. Yeah, with wingsuits people maintain 'terminal freefall' for extended periods of time mere feet off of the ground. Again, clearly apparent, not what was being discussed.

I've said this before in general, and I think I've said it to you in particular, some of you people just like to argue for the sake of argument, arguing against points that were not being made, to the point where it is pointless to have a discussion with you. Oh well, such is the state of the internet...

Both of my statements were for the sake of clarity - not for the sake of argument. I’d be willing to bet over half of the eight fatalities that occurred in 2022 were witnessed by unsuspecting bystanders who had no idea what swooping is.

I’ve intentionally been terminal at <1k in both skydiving and BASE environments. I’ve also performed high performance landings with big turns on <100 sq ft canopies. I’d say the margin for error is pretty similar for all three.

I don’t think the skydiving community has come to terms with this reality. The culture is, “Pulling low is stupid because there’s no point in it and you’ll eventually make a mistake and die.”

Also, “BASE is extremely dangerous and if you BASE jump long enough you will eventually die.”

But somehow, “Canopy Piloting is an exciting spectator friendly sport that has potential for inclusion in the Olympics and is used as a platform to promote skydiving to the general public.”

There’s some serious cognitive bias occurring in the skydiving community and it contributed to the eight deaths that occurred in 2022.

Edited April 4, 2023 by BMAC615

[riggerrob 558]

20 hours ago, kleggo said:

I'll bet that you've never been in terminal freefall below 1500 feet.

Trust me, there are visual differences.

Magical? That's up to the observer.

 

I have been at terminal velocity at 1500 feet.

It scared me when I  lost sight of the horizon in my peripheral vision.

It scared me before I did the math. After doing the math, I realized that I was dangerously close to impact. Much closer than if I had done a hop-and-pop or BASE jump from 1500 feet.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

On 4/4/2023 at 3:39 PM, riggerrob said:

I have been at terminal velocity at 1500 feet.

It scared me when I  lost sight of the horizon in my peripheral vision.

It scared me before I did the math. After doing the math, I realized that I was dangerously close to impact. Much closer than if I had done a hop-and-pop or BASE jump from 1500 feet.

What astonished me below a grand was how fast things were getting bigger.