HP From an Old Fart

[Marisan 0]

Quote

Quote

That's the problem Dave. And it's not just in the States, it's all over the world. Nothing will be done until some hotshot stuffs up a demo and takes out 5+ of the general public.
THEN you'll see a response. Jyro and the other manufacturers have a lot to answer for (And I first met him when he was a student on rounds)

And we're back to my point. The problem isn't the gear, it is the person flying the gear.

I almost agree Dave with one caveat: It's the training the person flying the gear has received.
In the States the FAA is already looking and, if they are worried enough, the response will be DRACONIAN.

[bodypilot90 0]

Just say no to mandated training. I'd be in favor of some form of mentoring. I have never paid for a coach jump nor ever charged for one.

[Marisan 0]

Quote

Just say no to mandated training. I'd be in favor of some form of mentoring. I have never paid for a coach jump nor ever charged for one.

You can't mentor someone unless you are with them seeing what they see. (Tandem Swooping Training anyone)

When I put out static line students back in the day they were on their own with only their training to keep them alive.

I had some scares but I never lost (Or injured) one.

[bodypilot90 0]

yea well a little bumping end cells after rw works for me.

[VideoFly 0]

I think it’s an inevitable generational and sports thing. In all sports, windows are continually being pushed to the limits, with greater risks, talent, and records being broken. Unfortunately, as the antes are raised, failures to perform become more and more expensive.

The quad spin in skating, rock climbing without ropes, deeper scuba depths, higher horse power in cars and motorcycles, and longer ski jumps. All made possible by greater athletes, with greater peril for those who emulate them (and for the experts themselves too). In all sports, equipment gets more responsive and aggressive. In all sports, failure to perform to higher standards carries greater penalties. I would imagine that when large square parachutes were first jumped, many “old” military farts with experience on rounds thought Paracommanders and the like were crazy too.

As to raising the risk for other more conservative jumpers sharing air space with high performance flyers, the same stands in other sports. In auto racing, they won’t even let granny on the track with the pros. It is kind like separating varying performance landing zones. But on the big-boy tracks, professionals still die, just as amateurs do in street racing.

The bottom line is that the current observed culture and climate may be inevitable. Do I like it? No, but I'm an old fart.

As to being potentially lethal; yes, skydiving is just that.

[Marisan 0]

Quote

I think it’s an inevitable generational and sports thing. In all sports, windows are continually being pushed to the limits, with greater risks, talent, and records being broken. Unfortunately, as the antes are raised, failures to perform become more and more expensive.

The quad spin in skating, rock climbing without ropes, deeper scuba depths, higher horse power in cars and motorcycles, and longer ski jumps. All made possible by greater athletes, with greater peril for those who emulate them (and for the experts themselves too). In all sports, equipment gets more responsive and aggressive. In all sports, failure to perform to higher standards carries greater penalties. I would imagine that when large square parachutes were first jumped, many “old” military farts with experience on rounds thought Paracommanders and the like were crazy too.

As to raising the risk for other more conservative jumpers sharing air space with high performance flyers, the same stands in other sports. In auto racing, they won’t even let granny on the track with the pros. It is kind like separating varying performance landing zones. But on the big-boy tracks, professionals still die, just as amateurs do in street racing.

The bottom line is that the current observed culture and climate may be inevitable. Do I like it? No, but I'm an old fart.

As to being potentially lethal; yes, skydiving is just that.

And now we have a winner!

[diablopilot 2]

Skydiving could be lethal.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[djmarvin 2]

I agree with the facts that it is the pilot, that we need more and better continuing education. My question is, what are you doing to help that, or are you just ranting on dramazone?

DJ Marvin
AFF I/E, Coach/E, USPA/UPT Tandem I/E
http://www.theratingscenter.com

[virgin-burner 1]

around here, it's mandatory now that once you get a drivers license, you are obliged to take an additional safety-training/course thing within two years i think.

how about implementing a mandatory canopy-course, say within a year of getting your A?

i always kinda cringe when i hear "i only need a parachute to get me down to earth safely!"; i mean, WTF, the canopy-ride is the longer part of a skydive, and as fatalities show, quite a substantial one..

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

[craigbey 0]

Quote

how about implementing a mandatory canopy-course, say within a year of getting your A?

That could be part of a larger solution. But there are jumpers who will want/need additional training beyond that. As they progress in the sport, they may wish to downsize to smaller canopies and different types of wings. How does the sport provide training for those people?

Do you think that the people with 1000+ jumps would be safer if they had come up in a sport with a different culture of education, training and respect for HP canopies? How do we prepare the next 1000-jump wonder?

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

how about implementing a mandatory canopy-course, say within a year of getting your A?

That could be part of a larger solution. But there are jumpers who will want/need additional training beyond that. As they progress in the sport, they may wish to downsize to smaller canopies and different types of wings. How does the sport provide training for those people?

Do you think that the people with 1000+ jumps would be safer if they had come up in a sport with a different culture of education, training and respect for HP canopies? How do we prepare the next 1000+ wonder?

those that WANT additional education shouldnt be a problem, those that NEED it.. well, how about some additional test for at least the one canopy-course? that could be a possibility to weed out the one or other potatoe..

at my dz it's quite established that once you downsize, you sign up for the next cc-course. i'd say at least 3/4 of the boys and girls do it. it's not mandatory, it's "good practice".

and while we're at it, i STILL think 25 jumps for a license is not enough. out of those are 7 for AFF and i dont know how many coaching-jumps you guys have. if the jumper would need to make say 50 SUPERVISED jumps/landings, that would leave you with roughly 3 times more educational opportunities to bang proper patterns and what not into their heads.

i know quite a couple jumpers that have/had in the range of 100 jumps before they got a license. while i think that's a little excessive.. at least one of them is now rocking the swooping-circus pretty hard!
oh, and yes, i DO think if MORE education was needed there would be much less incidents/fatalities..

“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]

and as for student-fatalities.. those numbers shocked me pretty good. why are THEY so high!? bad instruction/teachers!? that's the first thing that comes to mind, and that is FUCKING SCARY!

if piss-poor instruction is delivered to students, how should they become good skydivers?

i'm not saying this is the case, someone with one or twenty jumps is much more prone to brainlock or do wrong decisions that will end up getting them killed.

but it's surely something to think about more than only concentrating on WL's or types of canopies, since the majority of fatalities seems to happen to highly experienced jumpers!

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

[craigbey 0]

Quote

those that WANT additional education shouldnt be a problem, those that NEED it.. well, how about some additional test for at least the one canopy-course? that could be a possibility to weed out the one or other potatoe..

at my dz it's quite established that once you downsize, you sign up for the next cc-course. i'd say at least 3/4 of the boys and girls do it. it's not mandatory, it's "good practice".

It sounds like the culture at your DZ is a little better than most and people are participating in canopy training. But why wait until someone downsizes?

The testing part of the solution is valuable, if the process requires the demonstration of certain knowledge and skills before the jumper downsizes or moves to another type of wing.

BTW: It's pronounced po-tah-to.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Just say no to mandated training

Like AFF? That's mandated if you want an A licesne, should we just say no to that?

There was a time where canopy control was a more 'casual' aspect of the sport. Canopies were more docile, and there were fewer 'big' DZs around. If everyone jumped 200+ sq ft canopies out of Cessna 182s, we would be in a different postion right now. As it sits, people jumper higher performing, more capable canopies into much busier traffic patterns.

The problem now, and what it's been for the last decade is that canopies took a huge step forward in performance and capability, and canopy control training did not.

You cannot rely on mentoring, or word of mouth, or the generousity of others. We don't do it with AFF, and we shouldn't be doing it with canopies. If you want to jump a canopy like a big boy, then you need to be trained like a big boy.

It all comes back to what I keep saying, WL restrictions that pretain to jump numbers, and required continuing education if you want to progress. The basic idea is that if you want to train like you're in 1985 (meaning no canopy control training at all), that's your choice but you have to jump a canopy like they had in 1985 (more or less, a modern Z-po wing, just at a 1985 WL). If you want to jump a more modern canopy, then you need to train to jump that canopy.

Try this - grab any whuffo off the street, and ask them this, "Today in skydiving we have parachutes that are so manuverable and so fast, that they can kill you if you land them at half of their top speed. Right now in the US, there are no rules or regulations regarding what parachutes you can jump and no training required beyond the basic training you recieve when you first start jumping, and the parachutes used are much slower and easier to control. Does that make sense to you?" See what they say. I have a feeling that it won't make sense to anyone. It doesn't make sense to me.

If you want to jump like an 'old school' jumper, then the old school training (or lack of) is fine. If you want to be a part of 'modern' skydiving, it takes a little more effort.

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

those that WANT additional education shouldnt be a problem, those that NEED it.. well, how about some additional test for at least the one canopy-course? that could be a possibility to weed out the one or other potatoe..

at my dz it's quite established that once you downsize, you sign up for the next cc-course. i'd say at least 3/4 of the boys and girls do it. it's not mandatory, it's "good practice".

It sounds like the culture at your DZ is a little better than most and people are participating in canopy training. But why wait until someone downsizes?

The testing part of the solution is valuable, if the process requires the demonstration of certain knowledge and skills before the jumper downsizes or moves to another type of wing.

BTW: It's pronounced po-tah-to.

the same 3/4 will take a CC once they have their license and their first rig. again, usually it's not the skydive that kills, it's the landing. physics is a bitch and the ground wont move..

BTW

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

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

I agree with the facts that it is the pilot, that we need more and better continuing education. My question is, what are you doing to help that, or are you just ranting on dramazone?

I'd like to add that the continuing education should not only be for students but should be a REQUIRMENT for instructors. Let's face it this is now an industry and has changed to an extent that the self development of instructors and their skills after receiving their ratings is no longer keeping up with the needs of the students, and it's getting worse with each successive generation of instructor.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[slotperfect 7]

[warning] Personal attacks are not allowed in the forums. [/warning]

Arrive Safely

John

[djmarvin 2]

Quote

I'd like to add that the continuing education should not only be for students but should be a REQUIRMENT for instructors. Let's face it this is now an industry and has changed to an extent that the self development of instructors and their skills after receiving their ratings is no longer keeping up with the needs of the students, and it's getting worse with each successive generation of instructor.

As much as it pains me to say this, I agree with you JP :P

DJ Marvin
AFF I/E, Coach/E, USPA/UPT Tandem I/E
http://www.theratingscenter.com

[billvon 2,392]

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

Agreed.

To condense all your arguments - any canopy that can kill you is, by definition, lethal. And all canopies can kill you if you're dumb enough.

[Marisan 0]

Quote

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

Agreed.

To condense all your arguments - any canopy that can kill you is, by definition, lethal. And all canopies can kill you if you're dumb enough.

I agree with you Bill but what I am saying is that, on the older more benign canopies the margin for error was huge, compared to today's canopies.

On the modern canopies an error of judgement, turbulence or a myriad of other factors can have you in a world of hurt before you have time to react.
There is NO margin of error.

[VideoFly 0]

Unfortunately for some, “no margin of error” is what many find enticing. It is interesting that using a parachute for the simple purpose of saving your life following an exciting airplane exit and freefall has become boring.

We must realize though that with the redesign of high performance canopies, a somewhat new sport has been invented and for many, high performance canopy flight is as exciting, if not more exciting than freefall. In fact many do hop and pops to eliminate the need for freefall and move directly to high performance canopy flight.

To each; his/her own.

[billvon 2,392]

>I agree with you Bill but what I am saying is that, on the older more
>benign canopies the margin for error was huge, compared to today's
>canopies.

Depends on the canopy. For example, a 160 lb jumper is a lot safer under a Pilot 117 than under a Micro Raven 135.

However, in general I agree - the smaller the canopy, and the more aggressively it's trimmed, the less forgiving it is.

[Marisan 0]

What canopy has the most fatalities?

Any sport that has a thread like the above has major problems.

But it shows that people are, at least, starting to think about it

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I agree with you Bill but what I am saying is that, on the older more benign canopies the margin for error was huge, compared to today's canopies.

On the modern canopies an error of judgement, turbulence or a myriad of other factors can have you in a world of hurt before you have time to react.
There is NO margin of error.

Then what's my excuse? Of 5000+ jumps, at least 4800 are swoops, and 4600 of them were made on canopies sized 107 and down. Despite this, I've never been hurt. How could this be?

It comes back the same thing I keep saying, the canopies are different, and so the approach to canopy flight needs to be different.

Back when canopies were benign and had a huge margin for error, canopy control training didn't exist. There literally was no such thing as a canopy control course. On top of that, it wasn't uncommon to bang a two-stack together below 2k, and fly it through the pattern.

Now that canopies have changed, canopy control courses exist, and nobody does improptu CREW in the landing pattern. Different canopies, different approaches to canopy flight.

However, despite those changes, the fundamental training and oversight of canopy selection has not changed, and that cannot stand. You can't change the canopies, and most of the behaviours with them, and not change the training and oversight. It's an imcomplete situation, and it shows in the fatality and incident reports.

Let's also remember that more jumps are being made into busier traffic patterns than back in the day. Pre-1990 (when the Z-po revolution started) there was less and different activity on DZs then today, so any comparison made has to consider that.

Just like airplanes, motorcycles and cars, performance levels will go up, and as long as training and skill development goes up too, there shouldn't be a problem.

Airplanes have type-ratings, complex rating, high performance ratings, and all sorts of requirements if you plant o get insurance on anything 'fun'. You can't get your PPL one day, and just fly whatever you please the next, you have to work your up to bigger/better/faster and earn the right. Why are canopies different?

[crotalus01 0]

I am curious, have the total number of fatalities per year (all types, not just canopy related) increased or decreased when taking into account the total number of jumps per year?
Obviously canopy fatalities are a huge concern. I am just wondering if there are more fatalities per jump now, or if the number has actually decreased and moved into a different category (moving from no/low pull to open canopy)?
I hope that makes sense....

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...