0
MakeItHappen

Comments concerning a Canopy Licensing System

Recommended Posts

JohnMitchell

Hey, do you really have 1300+ jumps? I thought I remembered some not too old GoPro footage by you with a lot fewer jumps.

Did you know Glen? [:/]


How about we keep personal chat to PM B|
(For the record, no, I've never flown a GoPro)
Skydiving is serious business

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.

.



What leadership school did you go to?

I think you have a valid idea! There are so many questions that I have. Where does the cutoff start or it going to be for all canopies? With the number of new jumpers getting a licenses on 230+ sized canopies is a 140lb (exit weight) jumper going to be required to jump a 230sqft canopy or would it start with anything under 149sqft? Or will it start being at a certain wing loading? 1:1.? Is still conservative to someone who is light enough. I know the APF considers anything under 150 to be a HP canopy.

Written tests are stupid. The only person that can't pass one is the person that never opened a SIMS and got the answers. Is it performance based? Are jumpers required to pay for instruction? Do jumpers need to pay for a license through USPA?
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

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.



Actually, that's not really a good analogy. More akin to today's situation is the motorcycle comparison.

Once you have a motorcycle license you can buy anything from a mild 50cc scooter to the biggest baddest racing bike you can imagine - with no licensing distinction or restriction.

Quote

Enough with the idiotic replies,



I don't think his reply was idiotic. If you're serious about having a discussion, regardless of if it agrees with your viewpoint, then you'd do well to not be so dismissive.

Personally, I'm not too fond of even attempting to discuss this issue online, there's just way too much to discuss and debate to do it any real justice.

Ian
Performance Designs Factory Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jan, thank you for the well thought out proposal. Even at first glance it's something I see as a positive. I think the key element to success is the program being structured as a path to success for those that get in the sport and get bit by the swoop bug.

Regulation and rules turns off a great many in the sport due to the whole fly free mantra. They see our sport and us in it as free spirits willing to cross the lines to experience what we do. In many ways it's true, it takes a special person to lay it on the line, every time for the love of the sport.

However, even so, as John Mitchell says, enforcing the "no stupid shit" rule can be wildly interpreted. DZO's, S&TA's at many dz's rule pretty harshly to that. Some it appears to be non existent. Reasons vary, sometimes it's simply a matter of volume and people slip through the cracks. Either way, that alone won't contribute to solving this problem.

The program, built in a fashion that provides a clear path to their goals, is now not about regulation, but education and training. Hey, I want to swoop! "Well, come here and let's go over it, and lay out a plan for the next 36 months, what have you, and begin your training and education to do so.

We have it, loosely coupled (mentoring, tunnel camps, coaching) in many areas of the sport. It works well, but the thing that hits home about swooping is, if you drop a few slots on four way, you can just go up and try again.

If you screw up on your sight picture, you may not get another shot at it...

Aka, I really feel it's a great event/area of our sport. The big boys/girls that compete in swoop pull of some of the most beautiful moves there are and it's breathtaking to watch.

However, I don't think ANYONE can argue it's the most goddamn dangerous maneuver in our sport. Lack of an structured training and education program, that implements requirements for getting their is simply sad. Back to the driving license comment brought up earlier, to that poster? You can't drive a formula one car without years of training and advancement through the sport, simply won't happen, period.

Why are we still letting people drive formula one cars in our sport, without the same?

It's not about preventing death. It's about developing the programs and practices that build a stairway for those that want to get there. Then, taking them there step by step.

I gotta admit. I have "that personality"... I've fought it my whole life. I want something when I want it and I never want to work for it.

This is serious shit though, miss a beat, drop a toggle and you are screwed.

I went to SDC over the weekend. I want to jump wingsuits. I'm happy there is a program in place. I went to FlockU, met Greg and discussed next steps.

When my jump numbers support my state of readiness, I'll take my FJC with him. Will I stop after that? Hell no, I want to fly well, I want to flock and dock and so many other things after. From that perspective I see a long path ahead of coaching, training, education, practice, etc...

Keep moving with it Jan. My only request is structure not as a limitation or gatekeeper type thing, structure it as "here is how you get there from here".

My hats off to anyone that gets the swoop bug. Done right, it's a hell of a thing to watch and must be ten times more exciting to execute. I don't know that I'll ever have the guts to try but if I did I'd seek training, take my time, and follow the line. That's for damn sure.

Again, nice work Jan, go for it. In the end it should create better canopy pilots period. That's a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time to talk about this. Jan's proposal may not be the right direction (obviously there's a lot of disagreement on that :D), but if this discussion happens along with the constant evolution in canopies, then natural thought processes might just happen in tandem.

Back in the stone age when I started jumping, there weren't the differences in speed between canopies there are now by and large (yeah, squared were faster than rounds, but it all happened pretty slowly anyway, within normal reaction time speeds).

This videoshows Market Street in San Francisco in 1906, with essentially no traffic rules. It worked OK, because no one was going very fast. As vehicles began to be able to go faster and faster, it became less practical. Even so, we ended up with stoplights in the US, Britain ended up with traffic circles, and Brasilia tried to do away with intersections entirely. Up until the 1980's we weren't that different as far as canopy flight was concerned.

Focusing on individuals damaging themselves is one part; focusing on traffic management is another. Current USPA guidelines to separate dedicated swoopers from non-swoopers by either time or distance go a ways towards that -- possibly a noticeable way, given that canopy collisions don't seem to be #1 on the hit parade this year so far (give it time [:/]). Enough fun jumpers throw in a little swoop at the end of their ride, or videographers when landing before filming student landings, that it's hard to say that high-performance landings don't happen in the main landing area. Just not as many as before, and not as radical as before.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, maybe just saying that talking about it is part of the process. And once there are rules set up, canopy manufacturers will start to manufacture canopies that work with (or around) the rules -- because they will sell. That, too, has to be part of the consideration.

In the real world, you can, in fact, get whatever motorcycle you want for your first one in the US. It's recommended that you race your bike on a track, but just about every driver has seen some moron who thinks he's godlike because he's swerving in and around the traffic.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The B license canopy proficiency card goes the direction I think we should continue. Have one for the C and the D, and if people want small, x-braced canopies and want to swoop, they most hold a D-license. At least we have had a chance to work with them three times to educate them.

If we are talking about wingload limits, then they need to be enforceable without walking around with a scale under your arm. The S&TA or DZO us going to get real unpopular weighing customers who are on the borderline. And there is nothing to prevent someone "borrowing" a smaller canopy right after weigh in or flat out "forgetting" they have a smaller canopy packed up.

If you look at Brian Burke's studies on twenty years at Eloy, he remarks that over 1.4 wingloading and turns over 90 degrees (especially on landing) are the problems. Start with those two and you will eliminate a lot of the issues, but a lot of jumpers are going to be unhappy.....

top
Jump more, post less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
williammonk

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.



Exactly.

In the never-ending battle to reduce fatalities we seem to forget:

"The safer skydiving gear (or law) becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant."

So once all the dust settles we'll have more rules, more red tape, more cost in enforcement, and the same fatality rate.

My hallucination is that these potential rules may in fact reduce the total-lack-of-judgement crowd (e.g. Velo at 200 jumps), but I wouldn't be surprised to see the corresponding increase in fatals come from the intermediate skills crowd. Why? Because they will always jump the smallest canopy they "qualify" for per the rules/recs.

So how do you counter that? Well make the rules/recs more conservative. So now, as in all law, we'll be legislating to the lowest common denominator. I think another poster put it very well when he/she said something akin to "make everyone wear diapers because one person sh*t their pants."

All law inherently reduces freedom, usually the freedom to decide for yourself the best course of action.

*Edited for spelling/grammar
Apex BASE
#1816

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno. I remember the days when the number of fatalities was a whole lot higher, for (most likely) a much smaller number of jumps. It was, in fact, more dangerous.

Outlawing low pulls did lead to some people having "less fun." It also cut down on deaths. It was an arbitrary action, and disagreed with by a decent number of jumpers. And few people object when an old-timer sucks it down low, although it happens pretty rarely nowadays.

I'm not for making skydiving completely safe. Can't happen. I bemoan the wimpishness that makes people think that off-field landings are automatically emergencies, or that falling down when landing is a failure, or that 1200' is a good opening distance for a canopy. But those are considered "established" these days (don't I sound like an old-timer? :ph34r:).

"Fun police" arguments aren't very strong ones; they're right up there with "you're trying to hold me back." I think people who jump canopies that are beyond them are stupid. I also think they should be able to do so if they do it on their own jump run, so their lack of skill doesn't hurt someone else. I also don't object to a 16-year-old new driver taking the Bob Bondurant racing school. Of course, they make you go to classes -- you don't just get in their car, do you.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LyraM45

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?



Refuse to jump w/ the 200 jump wonder on a 120 w/ a wingloading of 1.6. Refuse to jump on the same load. Tell the DZO or S&TA that you won't jump on the same load and tell him/her why.

The solution is in our hands.

Same solution to the 50 jump wonder w/ a gopro.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Local enforcement of common sense. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bob Holler, Pat McGowan and Roger Nelson had a lot of common sense. They jumped in places where common sense was enforced. They all died.

"Common sense" isn't working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"Common sense" isn't working.



I can't say I agree with that. Not to say I feel content with the current state of affairs, but when one considers the sheer volume of high performance parachutes and people doing some sort of speed inducing landing (that includes just straight old double fronts, or even a tandem surge) then the statistics are remarkably low given the jump numbers.

Are there things we can do to make this better? Sure, I think there must be. My opinion is a focus on education.

Is regulation the answer? Not sure sure it is without creating a burdensome process that's error riddled anyway.

Ian
Performance Designs Factory Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Are there things we can do to make this better? Sure, I think there must be. My opinion is a focus on education.



How can USPA help to support that, Ian? You, and your teammates, were the types of folks I was thinking of when I mentioned getting the high-profile names engaged in generating ideas. I guess I should say how else can USPA support that, because the B license canopy course is one step they've taken already.
"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
-Joey-

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.



We've been SAYING this for as long as I can remember and you know what? Nothing changes...
Unless there are consequences for actions, or a prescribed route for progression there's no incentive for those that are most at risk - the guys with the mad skills - to listen or seek out any education.
You could have the best school system and teachers in the world, but if the kids don't attend, they're still going to get shitty grades.

So unless you can come up with a way to ensure that those that need it GET all this fantastic education that you're talking about, then your suggestion has limited value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jump Numbers (total jumps, jump rate and currency) as metrics:
Are jump numbers an indicator of skill or experience?
Jumps numbers in a specific area are indicators of skill level and experience.
Jump numbers alone do not determine the complete picture, but they do indicate trends.

Frequency of Occurrence:
If canopy problems were a one off issue then a do nothing approach could work fine.
The fact is that canopy issues of landing and collisions are a predominant cause of injuries and fatalities.

Severity of Occurrence:
The severity can range from a bump or bruise to loss of life.
The loss of life may include the person creating a hazard to those 'innocent bystanders'.

Regulation:
I don't like rules anymore than anyone else.
I hate rules. I hate programming rules.
But when they exist, I definitely know what the rules are.
Why do we need rules?
Rules exist because people cheat the spirit of the activity.
Plain and simple.
For instance, we have residential speed limits of 35mph or so.
The reason those rules are on the books is because there were people that could not or would not abide by the spirit of slower speeds in residential areas on their own accord.

Licensing:
Licensing is a systematic way of requiring people to demonstrate skill, proficiency and currency in a particular profession.
You need a license to do all sorts of things from cutting hair to installing solar panels to performing brain surgery.
Why does licensing exist for some occupations and not others?
It is related to the damage you may inadvertently inflict upon others if you did not have the requisite training, proficiency or skill level.
Licensing is a manifestation of a society protecting the members of that society from the incompetent and ill-trained think they know it alls.

To address Ian's comment about a MC license:
A person with a MC license is better prepared for any type of MC than a person without a MC license, just as a person with a hazmat/tanker license is better prepared to drive a gasoline tanker across the country than someone that does not have such a license.

Ability to Apply Logical Arguments:
I am open to any and all comments if they are logical.
When you resort to illogical and just plain stoopid reasons for your position, I can call you out on that.


.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How can USPA help to support that, Ian? You, and your teammates, were the types of folks I was thinking of when I mentioned getting the high-profile names engaged in generating ideas.



I'm not convinced it's USPA's problem to solve. To me this is more of a cultural shift our sport needs to make, and that's driven on the individual dropzone level.

I can't tell you how many people (experienced) feel they don't need any canopy education whatsoever. Until people believe they need better training (whether they're doing HP landings or not) I don't expect to see much change.

Ian
Performance Designs Factory Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I can't tell you how many people (experienced) feel they don't need any canopy education whatsoever

And that comes from the days when it really wasn't that necessary. But it's no longer the case. And just as parents really shouldn't teach their kids to drive, old-timers who just learned on their own probably aren't the best canopy instructors.

I think that the canopy course for the B license is a good start. I haven't looked at the course curriculum, but I'm hoping that it sets a standardized-across-the-country set of practices that will begin to become accepted practice as those jumpers mature.

Eventually I hope that the ones who "never had to take a canopy course" are the old-timers, like my grandfather who "learned how to drive on my own just fine."

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ianmdrennan

Quote

How can USPA help to support that, Ian? You, and your teammates, were the types of folks I was thinking of when I mentioned getting the high-profile names engaged in generating ideas.



I'm not convinced it's USPA's problem to solve. To me this is more of a cultural shift our sport needs to make, and that's driven on the individual dropzone level.

I can't tell you how many people (experienced) feel they don't need any canopy education whatsoever. Until people believe they need better training (whether they're doing HP landings or not) I don't expect to see much change.

Ian



I agree that there's a big cultural component to it, but it seems like we haven't made a huge amount of headway on it over the years that I've been in the sport (admittedly not as long as many others). You see it in the way we talk to new jumpers about buying gear. We say things like "You're going to want to downsize" and "You'll get bored with your first canopy in 100 jumps." We set up that expectation from the beginning, without really giving anyone (let alone the hotshot who wants to downsize really fast) the tools and education they need to fairly assess their readiness to downsize. It's been a couple years since I took a canopy course, but I don't recall that topic really coming up in any of the intro type courses (equivalent to today's B course). So where is that education taking place? Where should it take place? How can we drive people to seek that out?

I do, however, find the low pull analogy interesting, whereby old-timers tell me that USPA drove a cultural shift; by making pull altitudes part of the BSR, they changed the culture. By the time I started in 2004, dirty low pulling was seen as passe, not cool, etc. I feel like USPA might have a role to play (certainly not the only role) in driving cultural change here, too, if they do it right.
"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
Quote

And that comes from the days when it really wasn't that necessary. But it's no longer the case. And just as parents really shouldn't teach their kids to drive, old-timers who just learned on their own probably aren't the best canopy instructors.



Full agreement there.

Quote

I think that the canopy course for the B license is a good start.



It is, I think, but it's also just the tip of the iceberg. The biggest issue is that the cards are a set of exercises often taught by people who either don't understand, care, or have the knowledge to teach the theory behind them.

Bit of a chicken and egg scenario IMO.

Ian
Performance Designs Factory Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>then the statistics are remarkably low given the jump numbers.

Outside of aircraft accidents, I can't remember any other one aspect of skydiving that so regularly injured and killed OTHER skydivers.

I think people have the right to risk their own lives as long as they are making an informed decision about it. But when they start risking other people's lives, that moves it into a whole other realm of "acceptable risk."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The biggest issue is that the cards are a set of exercises often taught by people who either don't understand, care, or have the knowledge to teach the theory behind them

Until there are enough people who both do have all of the material down cold, and are willing to teach it, then we're stuck with a curriculum that most people can, in fact, teach, or that some students can learn by studying.

Should some portions of Brian Germain's book be required reading? We can't just depend on a small cadre of known swoopers and canopy pilots -- setting a curriculum is a start, then we have to figure out how non-swoopers can learn how to teach it.

Maybe another step would be to have an advanced canopy course available, that would be required by dz's for people who want to use their swoop areas, or even for some tight dz's. That curriculum would also have to be designed, and it might mean that there would be a swooping endorsement vs. a tight areas endorsement. I have no desire to swoop, but could see getting such an endorsement to land in some desirable DZ. Having demonstrated 30+ years ago that I could land my (round) canopy close to the peas enough times to get a D license is kind of irrelevant.

Yes, it's problematic for people who are currently jumping there and never took a course, or who (like me) took one and have no official record of it. But it'd be gotten past, and some feelings would be hurt, and the earth would continue to turn on its axis.

How to get that cadre of people who can teach the skills at least adequately effectively?

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed wholeheartedly Wendy.

I think though it's apparent SOME KIND of direction were taken beyond "Hey you can't jump that".

Life evolves, what used to work, doesn't work anymore, etc...

It's called evolution and with the sport growing, canopies getting even faster, it's time to do SOMETHING.

I have years to invest to even reach the knowledge level many of you have. By numbers alone I'm a nobody. However, that said, I'm smart enough to see a problem and notice that nothing innovative has been applied to resolve it.

Taking the same track on this that's been taken for the last twenty years is not a solution. Period.

When it comes to the fine details, executing on a plan/solution, well there's a hell of a lot more work to put in. However, doing nothing is ridiculous.

It makes the sport look ridiculous and us look ridiculous when all we can do is stand over the body and say "he shoulda listened to someone". More can be done, more should be done.

I don't want a police state but I think it's a joke that someone can strap on a velo that has NO business doing so. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Local enforcement of common sense. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bob Holler, Pat McGowan and Roger Nelson had a lot of common sense. They jumped in places where common sense was enforced. They all died.

"Common sense" isn't working.



Danny Page had been talked to numerous times, Chris Stasky had been talked to numerous times. I'm not sure about the Roger Nelson collision. All the "cool kids" seem to get a pass on the slow down or get out speech.

We can't "regulate" our way to a safer canopy situation through USPA. We already have a canopy control course for the B license. THIS CHANGE HAS TO COME FROM DZO's AND JUMPERS THEMSELVES.

It's not just the newbies killing themselves under a perfectly good canopy. Take a look at the very high time, very current, very experienced jumpers that have been killed or seriously injured on landing. Until we change our culture at DZ's, nothing much will change, no matter how many rules, regulations, courses, ratings, weigh ins, etc are required.

Instead of putting all of the regulation on the skydiver, maybe USPA should put regulation on the DZO's first. It's up to us to set the example for OVERALL safety. IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Local enforcement of common sense. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bob Holler, Pat McGowan and Roger Nelson had a lot of common sense. They jumped in places where common sense was enforced. They all died.

"Common sense" isn't working.



It's working better than anything anyone has done or is doing aside from banning high wing loadings or swooping altogether.

Also, I never claimed my strategy will end every accident. It just ends accidents caused by unqualified pilots allowed to act recklessly.

I don't know the details of Bob or Pat's incidents, but in the case of Roger's it could be said that there was a culture there that was contrary to common sense, much as there was at many DZ's in that era.

Staying with the OP's subject, all of those you cited would have been fully qualified to fly what they were flying under a licensing system or something even smaller. Accidents do and will continue to happen. Local enforcement of common sense helps keep them to a minimum and completely eliminates the reckless types from cratering on DZ's where it's employed.

What do you suggest? More rules WITHOUT local enforcement?
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, I think people have the right as well.

The thing I'd like to see is more formalized instruction in "getting there".

Yep, more expensive, someone would have to pay, etc... However, I think more work on canopy control (B license) to move on to the next level, is necessary.

There are quite a few courses, this area has been growing. I think it just needs more work and a little more framework built around it, and lastly our association applying it to the SIM, etc...

Not doing so, just isn't smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Southern_Man

***

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?



Refuse to jump w/ the 200 jump wonder on a 120 w/ a wingloading of 1.6. Refuse to jump on the same load. Tell the DZO or S&TA that you won't jump on the same load and tell him/her why.

The solution is in our hands.

Same solution to the 50 jump wonder w/ a gopro.

That's called peer and monetary pressure to force - here it comes again....."local enforcement of common sense"! You're on the right track. If the DZO or management won't do that, the jumpers can force it to happen through their refusal to accept it.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

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