0
MakeItHappen

Comments concerning a Canopy Licensing System

Recommended Posts

I'd like to propose an alternative solution to the pervasive problem of canopy control and progression.

As you may well know, errors of judgement in canopy control are the leading cause of injuries and death in skydiving today. Our community has made progress in this area by implementing standardized landing patterns at many DZs and separating swoopers and conventional pattern jumpers by space or time.

Canopy progression solutions that have been proposed previously have serious drawbacks in implementation.

For instance, a BSR change that specifies a WL versus number of jumps progression, similar to pull altitudes versus license level, is easily defeated and nearly impossible to enforce because of a determined jumper's ability to pad logbooks or substitute canopies without DZO/staff knowing about a substitution.

Another solution of creating a canopy instructor rating suffers from targeting instructors for additional training when the real problem lies in targeting the individual jumper for additional training. Mind you, I am all for training current instructors of any discipline learning more about canopy control. But that misses the issue. The issue is that newer jumpers with no ratings and at lower level license levels are the ones that most need additional training. More experienced jumpers may also benefit from additional training.

My alternative solution is to create a canopy licensing system that is akin to the various vehicle driver's licenses that are available in the US.

In the US, one gets a learner's permit when they are 16 or so. Once sufficient training and performance tests are accomplished the license is upgraded to a standard driver's license.
Later the license may be extended to various other categories, such as motorcycle, semi-truck, tanker, hazardous materials, school bus, chauffeur or tow truck.
In each case, additional training and performance testing is required to add a category to one's driver's license.

I propose that we look into creating various canopy licenses that are anchored to wing loading (WL), canopy planform/construction (rectangular, elliptical, crossbraced, etc) and experience level (#jumps) on each type of canopy.

Each milestone would require a written test and a performance test.

We currently do this for the PRO rating, without any PRO instructor rating.

The exact specifications of what exactly would be on the written test and the performance tests is a to be determined (TBD) issue that would be hashed out by the industry and then adopted by USPA.

I want your opinion and suggestions for such a plan.
As many of you know, I am on the USPA BOD and can put this plan in front of the S&T Committee and get some action/implementation going. This won't happen at one BOD meeting. It will take several meetings to flesh out the details. The details will come from jumpers, instructors, industry leaders and board members.

This will be a consensus adaptation of new policies. We need to come together to enhance the safety of jumpers as they progress over the years.

Please let me know what you think about this idea.

Blue Skies.


.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a USPA member and constituent, I would like to voice my opinion that I disagree with this idea.

First, about jump numbers: different jumpers progress at different rates. Anyone who denies this denies reality. Someone who does 1000 fun jumps with regular vanilla landings on a rectangular canopy hasn't progressed nearly as much as someone with 500 jumps who has dedicated each jump to honing their canopy skills, progressing toward more advanced landings, and making sure every jump is a quality one. IMO jump numbers aren't a very reliable metric for determining skills or readiness to fly something. Just like someone who has spent 100 hours at the race track is much more qualified to get into a race car than someone who has spent 200 hours commuting to work.

It wouldn't be right to punish the 500-jumper who has spent all their time honing their canopy skills and may well be perfectly ready for an x-brace just because other jumpers with similar or greater jump numbers (but much lower skills) have pounded in on them. If you're going to implement a new draconian canopy licensing system, at least make it about SKILLS, and skills alone, not jump numbers.

TLDR version - it punishes the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, which should never be acceptable in any society / community.

But the jump number issue aside, I think it's a bad idea all around, simply because we don't need more regulations and bureaucratic red tape than we already have. I think it would be more effective to promote a better culture of EDUCATION rather than a bunch of draconian restrictions and licensing systems that will cause a headache for everyone because of the actions of a few.
Skydiving is serious business

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with a lot of what your saying, a few things I don't, but they don't matter. My biggest problem with it would be if the IA for the canopy progression doesn't pass some one, or makes it too hard on them just because they're having a bad day, don't like the jumper, or just because they're having a bad day. I would go for some professional canopy pilots judging student canopy pilots though. How ever, I have to stand with at least 300 jumps on the first canopy before graduating up to any other higher performance based canopies.
Best-
Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Joey-

As a USPA member and constituent, I would like to voice my opinion that I disagree with this idea.

First, about jump numbers: different jumpers progress at different rates. Anyone who denies this denies reality. Someone who does 1000 fun jumps with regular vanilla landings on a rectangular canopy hasn't progressed nearly as much as someone with 500 jumps who has dedicated each jump to honing their canopy skills, progressing toward more advanced landings, and making sure every jump is a quality one. IMO jump numbers aren't a very reliable metric for determining skills or readiness to fly something. Just like someone who has spent 100 hours at the race track is much more qualified to get into a race car than someone who has spent 200 hours commuting to work.

It wouldn't be right to punish the 500-jumper who has spent all their time honing their canopy skills and may well be perfectly ready for an x-brace just because other jumpers with similar or greater jump numbers (but much lower skills) have pounded in on them. If you're going to implement a new draconian canopy licensing system, at least make it about SKILLS, and skills alone, not jump numbers.

TLDR version - it punishes the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, which should never be acceptable in any society / community.

But the jump number issue aside, I think it's a bad idea all around, simply because we don't need more regulations and bureaucratic red tape than we already have. I think it would be more effective to promote a better culture of EDUCATION rather than a bunch of draconian restrictions and licensing systems that will cause a headache for everyone because of the actions of a few.



I agree Joey.

Seems more and more people are thinking that since one person shits their pants everyone has to wear diapers.

William.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To give you a scuba diving equivalent you should, in theory, only be able to buy certain gas mixtures on production of qualification card proving you are competent. Oxygen as a decompression gas, trimix for deeper diving or even nitrox can kill you if you don't understand the theory or don't have the practical skills to handle the gas planning, contingencys and switches safely. Then there are rebreathers which could kill you in the same way and many more... It's very similar to flying a high performance canopy.

The reality... anyone can buy whatever they want if a shop doesn't check (most don't), if they do check you can get someone else to buy it for you or buy second hand or if its gas you can pump the gas yourself or get someone to have you cylinders filled for you. There are some conscientious retailers who wont sell to you but they are rare.

In any case it'd be far too complicated and costly to implement and manage.

How would you define wingloading when we know it's not linear? The stock answer would be 'refer to Brian Germain's chart'. Whilst I respect Brian that is one persons assessment of the WL situation and even that is very complicated with various exceptions and anomalies noted. (BTW - It looks very much like it's based on scuba diving decompression tables, perhaps because his wife is a diver?).

Besides which, I thought we had freedom in our developed modern democratic countries? We seem to be getting more and more regulated and looked upon by authorities.

Bottom line - You can't protect people from themselves. Not in a free society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

someone with 500 jumps who has dedicated each jump to honing their canopy skills, progressing toward more advanced landings, and making sure every jump is a quality one.



The last word in that quote is the operative word - one. That's the number of landings you get per jump, and the number of times you gain experience flying a parachute close to the ground. One.

Quote

It wouldn't be right to punish the 500-jumper who has spent all their time honing their canopy skills and may well be perfectly ready for an x-brace just because other jumpers with similar or greater jump numbers (but much lower skills) have pounded in on them.



First of all, nobody is being punished by anything. Given a reasonable course of downsizing and continuing education, the newer jumper would be gaining an advantage in their learning and skills far and above the current method of 'anything goes'.

The community overall would have better skills and education, making for safer canopy pilots. The education would be better as canopy control courses would be more established and the experience of the instructors in teaching those courses would go up.

So safer jumpers to be flying with, and better canopy control courses and instruction, yeah, that sounds like a punishment.

Again, what you're forgetting (or what you never knew or considered) is that anytime you tie something to jump numbers, the speed at which you progress will 'find it's own level'. If you are a dedicated jumper who can crank out 100 jumps per month, you will haul ass through the regs, and be jumping whatever you want in short order. If you are not doing that sort of volume, do you really think it would be advisable for you to rush through a canopy progression? The nice part about using jump numbers is that each jumper will move along at the pace that fits the volume of jumps they're making.

Quote

But the jump number issue aside, I think it's a bad idea all around, simply because we don't need more regulations and bureaucratic red tape than we already have.



First off, 'we' don't have shit. 'You' are a tourist (at best) and until you can start being honest about who you are and what your experience level is, don't expect much traction from your ideas. The concept of 'consider the source' comes into play heavily in skydiving, and when you don't know who you source is, the advice becomes worthless.

Along those same lines, nobody gives two shits about what you think. You've proven yourself to be childish, selfish, contrarian, and deceptive. That's not the way to earn credibility anywhere, especially when it comes to ideas or decisions that involve the risk of bodily injury or death.

This is one of those cases that I'm glad most people don't make it more than 5 years before they quit jumping. By my math, we have about 4 1/2 more of your crap before you'll move on to some other distraction from your video games (or you'll just retreat into your video games on a full time basis). Maybe we'll get really lucky, and you'll be on the fast track like you think you are, and you'll quit even sooner than the average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
craigbey

Quote

Local enforcement of common sense.



Make that happen everywhere in a consistent manner, and you've got a winning plan.



It's already a winning plan where employed in a consistent manner. That should make the sport-wide solution pretty obvious, but there are - and unfortunately probably always will be - places where perceived cool takes priority over logic.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Putting a canopy into a steep dive and then leveling out just in time to land is and always will be an inherently dangerous maneuver. As we all know. The small margin for error and the constant need of people to push the envelope harder and harder means that we will continue to see our friends hurt themselves. No amount of regulation short of banning will change that. And banning swooping would also be wrong.

All we can do is what we are already doing. Be vigilant and make sure that people understand the danger and encourage the sometimes lacking common sense.

Just say no to regulations and committees.


ma·neu·ver

Noun
A movement or series of moves requiring skill and care: "jumps and other daring maneuvers".
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

All we can do is what we are already doing. Be vigilant and make sure that people understand the danger and encourage the sometimes lacking common sense.



"We" aren't really doing that. There are countless examples of idiots who get banned from jumping their death machine of choice at one DZ and simply go DZ shopping until they find a DZO that either doesn't care or is so clueless that they too fail to see the potential for carnage.

That's why I insist that safety - whether swoop-related or otherwise - is only achieved through local enforcement of common sense. Staying alive while hurling our bodies at a planet is an inexact science, but we do have a well-established pattern of successes and failures to know the difference between calculated risk and sheer dumbassery.

But what do I know?
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That's why I insist that safety - whether swoop-related or otherwise - is only achieved through local enforcement of common sense.



But how do we get the DZO's/fellow jumpers/DZ employees/S&TA/Ect that aren't locally enforcing anything to start enforcing something?
Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That's why I insist that safety - whether swoop-related or otherwise - is only achieved through local enforcement of common sense. Staying alive while hurling our bodies at a planet is an inexact science, but we do have a well-established pattern of successes and failures to know the difference between calculated risk and sheer dumbassery.



Local enforcement is certainly a fundamental part of the solution, but how do you export the successes from one DZ to another? What specific educational or regulatory processes did the successful DZ's employ that need to be implemented elsewhere?

You mentioned there are some examples of idiots being banned. The DZO's or S&TA's had specific reasons for such actions. Why not make those formal rules and tie them to required education and ongoing training that could have prevented the jumper from getting to that point?

I think the development and implementation of canopy w/l and type restrictions together with ongoing educational requirements and skill certification prior to advancement is the formal version of the common sense measures you have described. A formal process that is recognized and accepted by the USPA and member DZ's is the way it gets pushed out to more DZ's.

No, it's not going to get implemented everywhere. No, it's not idiot-proof. But we might still have a very talented tunnel rat flying his Pilot or something more appropriate. And we would have more DZ's working together to provide more structured CC training and oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
craigbey

Quote

That's why I insist that safety - whether swoop-related or otherwise - is only achieved through local enforcement of common sense. Staying alive while hurling our bodies at a planet is an inexact science, but we do have a well-established pattern of successes and failures to know the difference between calculated risk and sheer dumbassery.



Local enforcement is certainly a fundamental part of the solution, but how do you export the successes from one DZ to another? What specific educational or regulatory processes did the successful DZ's employ that need to be implemented elsewhere?

You mentioned there are some examples of idiots being banned. The DZO's or S&TA's had specific reasons for such actions. Why not make those formal rules and tie them to required education and ongoing training that could have prevented the jumper from getting to that point?

I think the development and implementation of canopy w/l and type restrictions together with ongoing educational requirements and skill certification prior to advancement is the formal version of the common sense measures you have described. A formal process that is recognized and accepted by the USPA and member DZ's is the way it gets pushed out to more DZ's.

No, it's not going to get implemented everywhere. No, it's not idiot-proof. But we might still have a very talented tunnel rat flying his Pilot or something more appropriate. And we would have more DZ's working together to provide more structured CC training and oversight.



You took the words right out of my mouth. This is what I was getting to when I asked how would we go about making DZ's police themselves and enforce something. I think that's the main reason we would need some sort of rule to do something uniform across all GM DZ's. I wish we could sit here and say "we need to police ourselves more and enforce XXX to prevent this from not happening," and everybody would conform and the culture would change collectively......but we've seen this before, we've said this before, and obviously it's not working. I really wish it would. Sounds easy and all, right? I really wish the community would step up, but I don't think it will happen on its own in a uniform way.
Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

I have low jump numbers so you won't take me seriously but here it goes. I am a little older, maybe getting close to the average age of skydivers.

One problem that I see with implementing new programs is the ability to regulate the program. Who is going to certify the "cops," and what type of requirements will the current high jump number jumpers be required to perform to ensure they are on an appropriate canopy?

IE: There are tandem instructors with 6000 jumps but 5000 are on a tandem.

It's a great idea but I have seen drop-zones without HP landing areas and swoopers do cut in front or cut off other jumpers because they don't want to walk far through the landing area and its easier to land near the packing area. Which also brings up other issues.

Anyways, good luck thanks for looking out!
If you do things that don't make you appreciate life than why do them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

IE: There are tandem instructors with 6000 jumps but 5000 are on a tandem.



That's why a regulation/rule couldn't be a general jump number. It would have to be "x amount of jumps on this type of canopy, X amount of jumps on the next type of canopy, etc before going xbrace." There would have to be some kind of progression. It would have to be signed off, similar to what dave was talking about (in the incident thread) with a typical student progression and creating a safe environment for people who don't know enough to judge their skill yet.
Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Jan, first of all, thanks for having the guts to take this on; as you've noted, this is probably not a "one meeting" solution, but I hope you're successful in getting a dialogue started. It took us a long time to get to the canopy course requirement for a B license; I expect any attempt at a broader solution will also take some time.

Quote


The exact specifications of what exactly would be on the written test and the performance tests is a to be determined (TBD) issue that would be hashed out by the industry and then adopted by USPA.



Written tests are pretty straightforward, once they're developed, assuming they're multiple choice, administering them is pretty much a no-brainer and doesn't require any skill to administer other than being able to check a test against an answer key. I'm more interested in the performance tests; how might those be administered and evaluated? By whom? Who would be qualified to administer the tests? I suspect this might be one of the biggest points of discussion, as the question of "should an instructor/S&TA/whoever who doesn't do high-performance landings be able to evaluate my fitness to move onto a high(er)-performance canopy?"

Another question comes around measuring wingloading - seems like something that could get a little dicey if you've got someone who always comes back at the start of the season with an extra 15 lbs. Or if you've got someone who sometimes wears lead, sometimes doesn't. I think as long as we don't try to be too prescriptive on wingloading it might not be that big a deal (I'd hate to see someone who goes from 1.19 to 1.21 have to upsize every time they fluctuate within a small weight range).

My other comment is a political one regarding the USPA board and how any proposals might be received. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you're a high-performance canopy pilot, Jan. Because of your years of experience in the sport and serving USPA, you obviously have a ton of credibility on a lot of issues, but I wonder if this is the type of proposal that almost requires the support of your board colleagues who are highly-experienced, well-known high-performance canopy pilots (I'm thinking of Al & Luke off the top of my head, but there are probably others I'm not thinking of). If ideas come from and/or have the support of guys like that, to me it seems they'd be harder to ignore/dismiss/write off than if they come from people who are perceived to be "fogeys" who are "out of touch" with what's happening with the sport. Similarly, there may be high profile supporters outside of the board that can help to develop & move this idea forward. You may already be on that, but just thought I'd throw that out there.

I'd also like to comment on Chuck's idea that enforcement should be local. I totally agree with that, but I can't say that I've ever really seen it happen. I haven't been around nearly as long, but I've been to a lot of DZs, and it seems like every single one has a DGIT or 10 that everyone knows about and no one's doing much about (other than telling him he's a dumbass; no one's grounding him or making him fly something else). :|

I don't really know if Jan's proposal (or some flavor of it) will help to drive better enforcement at the local level, but I'd like to see the board at least give this some serious thought and discussion.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tristansdad

Just because someone has a license do to something doesnt make them any safer. Look at how many people die on our roads every year.



Yeah, right. I'll just hop in a gasoline tanker truck and drive it cross country and be as safe as someone that has a license to do that.

Enough with the idiotic replies, I'll be posting a lengthier reply to address issues that others have brought up.

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NWFlyer

I'd also like to comment on Chuck's idea that enforcement should be local. I totally agree with that, but I can't say that I've ever really seen it happen.



I ran a DZ for several years and I can assure you we had absolutely no problems in this area. Every jumper knew we would send them packing for doing stupid shit, so there wasn't any. Word spreads like wildfire in the sport, so the morons knew their shit wouldn't fly - literally - on my DZ before they ever tried.

We even had a hit list of known ass-wipes who would be turned away on arrival if they ever showed up.

We had very few rules at Skydive USA, but number 1 was "no stupid shit". Serious, that really was a rule and everyone from FJC students on up knew it and could recite it on command. We all know what stupid shit looks like, so a definition was never needed.

It really is that simple. There will always be jumpers who choose to push things beyond reason, but if they have no place to jump they can't be a problem - at least not to us. It worked then and it works now. DZO's just need the balls to apply it.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that some of you guys are missing some of the picture. If all these rules get passed, the people who really want to push themselves will just go to dropzones that don't enforce the rules.

Just like gun control laws, I fear that these rules would take the fun canopies out of the honest people's hands.

We can call it: Fun control.

We are all members of a dangerous sport. Some people will always try to push themselves to the limit. These people will always exist no matter what rules are in place. Now that equipment has become so good, We see most deaths are self inflicted. It is the unfortunate truth that the death figure will likely remain constant regardless of any new policies.

The USPA coming in and telling me what's the best canopy for me isn't good for the sport. It hinders progress and retards growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MakeItHappen



Enough with the idiotic replies, I'll be posting a lengthier reply to address issues that others have brought up.


You created this thread asking for input. The majority of the people here voiced their opinions that this is a bad idea. If you didn't actually want to hear others' opinions, why did you create this thread?
Skydiving is serious business

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.

0