HP From an Old Fart

[billvon 2,379]

>The more relevant question billvon is: what are YOU doing?

About 16 years ago I got my instructor rating and started teaching. During that time I was doing a lot of water trainings and I used that to teach a half hour "graduate course" - a course that covered all the stuff you don't learn from osmosis. How to safely land a HP canopy (which at the time meant a Sabre 1.) How to exit from different aircraft. What to watch out for on an 8-way.

Then about 14 years ago I started pressing for a more formal USPA graduate program, one that bridged the gap between AFF and the A license. Got a few petitions signed and wrote an article for PARACHUTIST, called "the training gap," that outlined a potential program. A few years later the ISP was introduced as a bridge between AFF and the A license.

Around the same time I was chief instructor at Brown Field and got a HP student canopy (a Triathalon, which believe it or not was considered high performance at the time) into a student rig. We used as a HP transition canopy. I taught people what I knew about HP canopy flight, which at the time wasn't much.

When fatalities under open canopies started climbing me and three other moderators from here collaborated on outlining a change to the licensing structure that would require more coaching, as well as the creation of a "canopy coach" rating from USPA. Posted it here and again sent it into PARACHUTIST, who published it. USPA ended up implementing what we think of as the standard coach rating, which wasn't really what we were after. So that one didn't work out that well.

After Danny Page killed Bob Holler I started another petition drive. This time we (six of us, including Molly, his girlfriend) also went to a USPA meeting and lobbied for a change to the BSR. We compromised with them and added a requirement to the group pledge that mandates separate HP and standard landing areas.

Today I teach AFF and give people as much as I think they can hold both during the FJC and during their later levels (where they are more able to absorb canopy information.) I moderate the incidents forum to try to get as much good information on canopy incidents out there as possible, and I do what I can here to keep people off canopies that will likely kill them. As a result I get abuse from people like VirginBurner, who thinks I'm a clueless dick for sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, and abuse from people like you, who don't think I'm doing enough.

So again - what did _you_ do?

[skybill 18]

Quote

>The more relevant question billvon is: what are YOU doing?

About 16 years ago I got my instructor rating and started teaching. During that time I was doing a lot of water trainings and I used that to teach a half hour "graduate course" - a course that covered all the stuff you don't learn from osmosis. How to safely land a HP canopy (which at the time meant a Sabre 1.) How to exit from different aircraft. What to watch out for on an 8-way.

Then about 14 years ago I started pressing for a more formal USPA graduate program, one that bridged the gap between AFF and the A license. Got a few petitions signed and wrote an article for PARACHUTIST, called "the training gap," that outlined a potential program. A few years later the ISP was introduced as a bridge between AFF and the A license.

Around the same time I was chief instructor at Brown Field and got a HP student canopy (a Triathalon, which believe it or not was considered high performance at the time) into a student rig. We used as a HP transition canopy. I taught people what I knew about HP canopy flight, which at the time wasn't much.

When fatalities under open canopies started climbing me and three other moderators from here collaborated on outlining a change to the licensing structure that would require more coaching, as well as the creation of a "canopy coach" rating from USPA. Posted it here and again sent it into PARACHUTIST, who published it. USPA ended up implementing what we think of as the standard coach rating, which wasn't really what we were after. So that one didn't work out that well.

After Danny Page killed Bob Holler I started another petition drive. This time we (six of us, including Molly, his girlfriend) also went to a USPA meeting and lobbied for a change to the BSR. We compromised with them and added a requirement to the group pledge that mandates separate HP and standard landing areas.

Today I teach AFF and give people as much as I think they can hold both during the FJC and during their later levels (where they are more able to absorb canopy information.) I moderate the incidents forum to try to get as much good information on canopy incidents out there as possible, and I do what I can here to keep people off canopies that will likely kill them. As a result I get abuse from people like VirginBurner, who thinks I'm a clueless dick for sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, and abuse from people like you, who don't think I'm doing enough.

So again - what did _you_ do?

Hi Billy,
Thanks for your post!! Good job!

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[virgin-burner 1]

uhm, what abuse are you getting from me exactly, bill!?



just because you guys dont seem to get your shit together doesnt mean the rest of the world does too.

the stupidity in this forum alone is staggering, you'd be better off raising your license-requirements. i've seen people denied their AFF1 because they were too fucking stupid. if those standards were to be applied in YOUR country, you could close half your dropzones down..



and as for abuse, you SOOO love to mention me on every 2nd thread you seem to reply to, how is that for abuse? you're kindly invited to come here for a jump or two, so you can PEROSNALLY observe me, THEN you can voice your opinion and stalk me all you want, until then - STOP ABUSING ME.

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

what is this PLF you're speaking of exactly!?

Are you being a dick or do you truly not know?

Either way it illustrates the problem in a way that my poor prose cannot.

a bit of both; i have never learned how to do a PLF.

there was an article on here not too long ago An inconvenient truth regarding PLF's, which you may like to read..

So...you believe that article, eh?
The guys shoots himself in the foot repeatedly throughout the article when he talks about PLF.

Here's just one example:
"At touch down the jumper should try to absorb as much as possible of the downward impact with their feet but lean back in the harness. .....The jumper wants to stay on their feet as long as possible, tending to sitting down."

Great. Resist the impact. Take all that energy into your legs. Good luck with that.
Great. Try to sit down. Expose your tailbone to injury. Good luck with that.


I hope youngsters don't see that article. They might believe it, too.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

The only loss of control I see is -YOUR- loss of reality. Skydiving changed old man, for better or worse it changed and left your giant slow parachutes behind. This happens in every action sport out there. Someone finds a way to make it safer, faster, stronger, longer, and more fun.

Since you choose to be condescending, I wouldn't be surprised to see him respond with "young punk" or something like that. I'll elect to not go there.

First -
Two words:
Booth's Law
It was created just for your mindset.

Second -
You equate speed to fun. Have at it. Many others think differently.

Quote

It seems the people that can make it better are trying. It's getting better every day. New requirements at dropzones and more BS in the BSR.

Define "better"

BS in the BSR's? There's the indicator of your mindset. Thanks for the info.

Quote

The first person to notice the change is the one too far removed from it to have any part in making the change BETTER.

And the first one to get themselves crunched is the one who fails to understand the change and adapt to it...read: train for it.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I'm far too new to have an opinion, but what do you up-number jumpers think. What does everyone think of the new requirement? Close to the mark, way off?

You answered your own question with:
"The new requirement has the look and feel of a tentative trial of a requirement that could easily be expanded..."

It's a start. I sincerely hope that S&TA's across the board support the effort and make the additional effort to improve this first attempt. Kinda like beta testers, eh?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Marisan, you seem to have a vendetta against anything that can flare.

Nope. If you must call it "vendetta", then he, like me has a vendetta against people needlessly hurting themselves. He is simply making a call for action to those of us still in the sport.

We have developed a first-draft plan of action and it goes into affect Jan 1, 2012.

He is making a call for more than that...and that's a good thing.

"anything that can flare"??????
Surely you are not saying only HP canopies can flare.

Quote

But dramatic complaining online is not helping anything.

It got this good discussion started, didn't it? THAT'S a good thing, too. As long as we "discuss", as opposed to falling into the "flaming trap", we're good to go.

From skyjumpenfool:
"Marisan has nothing (personally) to gain by his actions/postings here. I applaud his effort!! "
Count me in on that...whole-heartedly.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Good stuff, Bill....except the last sentence. That sounded like dick measuring.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[billvon 2,379]

>what abuse are you getting from me exactly, bill!? . . .

"THEN you can voice your opinion and stalk me all you want,"

[DaVinciflies 0]

Quote

>The more relevant question billvon is: what are YOU doing?

About 16 years ago I got my instructor rating and started teaching. During that time I was doing a lot of water trainings and I used that to teach a half hour "graduate course" - a course that covered all the stuff you don't learn from osmosis. How to safely land a HP canopy (which at the time meant a Sabre 1.) How to exit from different aircraft. What to watch out for on an 8-way.

Then about 14 years ago I started pressing for a more formal USPA graduate program, one that bridged the gap between AFF and the A license. Got a few petitions signed and wrote an article for PARACHUTIST, called "the training gap," that outlined a potential program. A few years later the ISP was introduced as a bridge between AFF and the A license.

Around the same time I was chief instructor at Brown Field and got a HP student canopy (a Triathalon, which believe it or not was considered high performance at the time) into a student rig. We used as a HP transition canopy. I taught people what I knew about HP canopy flight, which at the time wasn't much.

When fatalities under open canopies started climbing me and three other moderators from here collaborated on outlining a change to the licensing structure that would require more coaching, as well as the creation of a "canopy coach" rating from USPA. Posted it here and again sent it into PARACHUTIST, who published it. USPA ended up implementing what we think of as the standard coach rating, which wasn't really what we were after. So that one didn't work out that well.

After Danny Page killed Bob Holler I started another petition drive. This time we (six of us, including Molly, his girlfriend) also went to a USPA meeting and lobbied for a change to the BSR. We compromised with them and added a requirement to the group pledge that mandates separate HP and standard landing areas.

Today I teach AFF and give people as much as I think they can hold both during the FJC and during their later levels (where they are more able to absorb canopy information.) I moderate the incidents forum to try to get as much good information on canopy incidents out there as possible, and I do what I can here to keep people off canopies that will likely kill them. As a result I get abuse from people like VirginBurner, who thinks I'm a clueless dick for sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, and abuse from people like you, who don't think I'm doing enough.

So again - what did _you_ do?

Thank you for all you have done and tried to do, Bill.

This is list of actions taken would shame most people in the sport - including myself.

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

>what abuse are you getting from me exactly, bill!? . . .

"THEN you can voice your opinion and stalk me all you want,"

if you do quote me, please quote the whole fucking thing that's relevant. or do you suffer from selective reading like most of the posters here too? i was under the impression you were able to absorb and process more information that is contained in two lines.

so yea, you're kindly invited to make your own picture. cheers!

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[Calvin19 0]

Quote

He is making a call for more than that...

Yeah, originally it was banning HP canopies, that by his definition is anything that can flare. Have you read all the threads he has started and attempted to hijack with this opinion?

Quote

"anything that can flare"??????
Surely you are not saying only HP canopies can flare.

Again, did you read any of his other posts? I won't quote it here because it is pretty long. In short he defines anything that has any ability to "fly" and cause problems for anyone is an HP canopy. He has since agreed that this is not possible and has moved on to pushing harder regulations and training self imposed by the skydivers instead of just throwing all these parachutes in a fire. I have PMd Marisan a few times in an effort to understand his POV better. I have come to believe our (his and most skydivers) motivations and intention are the same, but maybe his communication tactics and ideas are a little drastic.

-SPACE-

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Quote

Another point that I have been thinking for a while,
How many deaths per skydive statistic is from the old times and now days.

Although I understand your question, I think that anyone trying to argue there's not a problem because "statistically" we're not losing enough friends, is not seeing the big picture.

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[billvon 2,379]

>or do you suffer from selective reading like most of the posters here too?

Dude, I don't care if you hate me, or think I'm clueless, or whatever. I do hope you survive your early career in skydiving, and that it doesn't take an incident like Sangi's to teach you what he has learned.

[craigbey 0]

Quote

anyone trying to argue there's not a problem because "statistically" we're not losing enough friends, is not seeing the big picture.

Excellent point. Losing friends is a tragedy...
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/fatalities/search.cgi?fatal_country=Australia

It's a shame that someone who 'knew better' wasn't there to impart their wisdom to their friends before these incidents.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Any Canopy that, when it opens in line twists, spins up to a speed that makes cutaways problematic is by definition lethal.

No, it is more prone to malfunction. Lethal is if you fail to react properly to the problem. A Pitts Special is an aerobatic plane, it is not for a beginner and requires more MX. Same with a HP canopy.

Quote

Any canopy, that has to be regularly opened at 4500' to give time to deal with high speed malfunctions is by definition lethal.

Nonsense, there is no magical number for an opening altitude.

Quote

Any canopy that can kill by a mere 90 degree wind change is by definition lethal.

More nonsense. I can fly my HP canopy into, DW and cross wind just fine.

Quote

Any canopy that turns and dives so fast as to make any attempt to clear airspace impossible is by definition lethal.

It is not impossible. YOU just can't do it. Same thing as the Pitts... Not everyone should fly one, but that does not mean NO ONE should fly one.

Quote

Any canopy that can be totally collapsed by turbulence is by definition lethal.

Hey, you may actually have one here.

Quote

Any canopy that can be docked on by a wingsuit is by definition lethal.

This one is total crap. The proof is that those that have docked with a WS are not dead.

Quote

Any canopy that can exceed the parameters of an AAD is by definition lethal.

Well, I knew a bunch of students that set off Sentinels with RAVENS... So, I guess RAVENS are "lethal"??? A more logical thought is that the AAD's had an issue in that they were being used in a manor not considered during the design... Again, an AAD issue, not a canopy issue.

Quote

Any canopy that can cause a cutaway from a brake fire is by definition lethal.

More crap. I have seen Ravens cutaway due to a brake fire. And it is not lethal unless the pilot performs incorrectly.

Quote

Any canopy that with the slightest lapse of currency or attention can cause injury is by definition lethal.

No, just like the Pitts they should not be flown by just anyone. But that does not make them "lethal"

Quote

Any canopy that (even on a test jump) that can cause GLOC (Google it) is by definition lethal.

Maybe.

Quote

Flame as much as you like because it's only luck keeping you out of the incident forum!

Pure crap.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

raising pull-altitudes probably would BY FAR have a greater effect on fatalities than any restrictions on canopies would have, since it appears there's a relatively large amount of entanglements

Raising pull altitudes will not change the entanglement issues.

Quote

or reserves not being deployed in time to inflate..

And most of those are people that lost track of altitude.... So it *might* help, but what WOULD help is making them more altitude aware

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

No one can go from a Cessna 150 to " The Fork Tailed Doctor Killer" without, at least , a type rating

The Bonanza does not require a type rating.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

Hi Pablo,
at 130 jumps you don't have enough experience to know what you don't know.

He is more current than you.
He knows more about modern canopies than you.

I'd feel safer with him in the air than with you.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

>or do you suffer from selective reading like most of the posters here too?

Dude, I don't care if you hate me, or think I'm clueless, or whatever. I do hope you survive your early career in skydiving, and that it doesn't take an incident like Sangi's to teach you what he has learned.

dude, i dont hate you; i hate your constant bickering on me. and since i brought it up, it seems you also dont like it much.

and thanks; i believe i'll be just fine!

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[billvon 2,379]

>and thanks; i believe i'll be just fine!

Yep. I think Sangi used those words too.

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

raising pull-altitudes probably would BY FAR have a greater effect on fatalities than any restrictions on canopies would have, since it appears there's a relatively large amount of entanglements

Raising pull altitudes will not change the entanglement issues.

Quote

or reserves not being deployed in time to inflate..

And most of those are people that lost track of altitude.... So it *might* help, but what WOULD help is making them more altitude aware

why not? i've only had one reserve ride as of yet, and believe me, it was NO fun helicoptering around at a gazillion miles an hour. being able to get free of your main and at least TRYING to get back into a stable position. it didnt work for me, but i also knew i've had plenty of altitude before i would hit dirt.

also, if you havent specifically lost altitude awareness (there's not much that can help you there except if your rig is equipped with a cypres), if you DO have a problem with your reserve it's not at an altitude where whatever you try, it's certain death. at least you can TRY to save your sorry butt.

a couple of extra seconds of freefall is NOT worth it. 2500ft is STUPID low, IMHO.

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

>and thanks; i believe i'll be just fine!

Yep. I think Sangi used those words too.

sangi's alo the one that cranked the big turns that made you cringe on every video you saw of him. and that is what got him in the end.

to keep it in your style, even a big idiot on a small wing like me could see where this was going. his video made the rounds even in my country, and when i remarked i knew the guy and made him go back from the katana, i got a pat on the back and the line "well done!!".
perfect opportunity for every concerned fellow to say "uhm, so why you keep jumping what you are?". and i got none of that from my friends. now you can go and twist and turn that statement to bend it to your liking. it wont change the fact that that hasnt happened. sorry mate, but i'd rather trust their and my judgement than ANY posters on here.

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[billvon 2,379]

>sorry mate, but i'd rather trust their and my judgement than ANY posters on here.

Yep. And again, Sangi used almost exactly those words. How'd that work out for him?

[Ron 7]

Quote

why not? i've only had one reserve ride as of yet, and believe me, it was NO fun helicoptering around at a gazillion miles an hour. being able to get free of your main and at least TRYING to get back into a stable position

There were two parts.

1. Raising pull altitudes will do nothing for entanglements since it was not a deployment problem, it was a pattern problem.

2. It will not save people from bouncing since... As you claimed "but i also knew i've had plenty of altitude before i would hit dirt"

You don't think each and every person who pounded in under nothing or a deploying reserve had that EXACT same thought? If they HAD known where they were, they would have deployed a reserve faster.

The insidious thing about losing altitude awareness means you THINK you have enough time. And that can happen no mater how much time you ACTUALLY have.

Quote

2500ft is STUPID low, IMHO.

That is an opinion.... I have more exits below that than you have jumps.

Are you trying to say that you know more than someone with 10X your experience?

The point is that you have provided nothing to back up your claim that:
A. Higher will prevent people who have lost track of altitude from bouncing.

B. 2500 feet is "stupid low"

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334