0
MakeItHappen

Comments concerning a Canopy Licensing System

Recommended Posts

ianmdrennan

Quote

The guy with 2100 jumps has more practice with that.



While technically accurate, if the person with 2100 jumps has just raced to the ground (as most people do) then you could argue they haven't really learned anything more about flying their parachute correctly than the person who's done it 500 times but really been focusing on learning.

edit: That said, the person with 2100 jumps has a much higher likelihood of having been exposed to more situations that can develop than the 500 jump person.

Ian



I don't agree with the "if the person with 2100 jumps has just raced to the ground (as most people do) " thing.
I don't think that is true at all.

Anyway, I've been mulling over performance tests.

One that could be used is the performance factors used in sport accuracy.
Sport accuracy is run during the US Collegiates, so it can be used safely for people with only a few hundred jumps on a particular canopy.

Ian --
in the contrived example, what types of questions can you ask to each of those fictional jumpers that would produce answers to demonstrate that one person knows more than the other wrt canopy control.

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These were all highly experienced skydivers. While we won't be able to eliminate all instances of canopy collisions and/or low turn fatalities, in my opinion this discussion is more about people with lower jump numbers and less experience.

This issue of having some guidelines for downsizing progression, etc. is geared more towards the newer jumpers who are on canopies they shouldn't be. (i.e: someone with 400 jumps on a moderately/highly wingloaded crossbrace canopy). And perhaps some clear guidelines or rules for those cases CAN reduce the amount of fatalities.

Btw - we wouldn't be inventing the wheel here, as this is done in several other countries (i.e: Norway, Denmark, France and perhaps others?). Here's the other dz.com thread with links to those countries regulations on max wingloading, jump numbers and/or min. size canopy per exit weight.
http://www.dropzone.com/forum/Skydiving_Disciplines_C3/Swooping_and_Canopy_Control_F4/Downsizng_Rules/Regulations_P4311980/

It will take some in depth discussion, but the USPA implementing something like this here would be a good thing.

Ella Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MakeItHappen

***

Quote

The guy with 2100 jumps has more practice with that.



While technically accurate, if the person with 2100 jumps has just raced to the ground (as most people do) then you could argue they haven't really learned anything more about flying their parachute correctly than the person who's done it 500 times but really been focusing on learning.

edit: That said, the person with 2100 jumps has a much higher likelihood of having been exposed to more situations that can develop than the 500 jump person.

Ian




Ian --
in the contrived example, what types of questions can you ask to each of those fictional jumpers that would produce answers to demonstrate that one person knows more than the other wrt canopy control.


Let me interject with this:

What canopy response would you expect if you pulled an equal distance on one front riser and the opposite rear riser at the same time?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
popsjumper

******

Quote

The guy with 2100 jumps has more practice with that.



While technically accurate, if the person with 2100 jumps has just raced to the ground (as most people do) then you could argue they haven't really learned anything more about flying their parachute correctly than the person who's done it 500 times but really been focusing on learning.

edit: That said, the person with 2100 jumps has a much higher likelihood of having been exposed to more situations that can develop than the 500 jump person.

Ian




Ian --
in the contrived example, what types of questions can you ask to each of those fictional jumpers that would produce answers to demonstrate that one person knows more than the other wrt canopy control.


Let me interject with this:

What canopy response would you expect if you pulled an equal distance on one front riser and the opposite rear riser at the same time?

A "helicopter" effect. The canopy would semi-collapse losing air tension in most of it's cells and then start turning on the yaw axis in the direction of the rear riser input.
"Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing than a long life spent in a miserable way." -Alan Watts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DcloudZ

*********

Quote

The guy with 2100 jumps has more practice with that.



While technically accurate, if the person with 2100 jumps has just raced to the ground (as most people do) then you could argue they haven't really learned anything more about flying their parachute correctly than the person who's done it 500 times but really been focusing on learning.

edit: That said, the person with 2100 jumps has a much higher likelihood of having been exposed to more situations that can develop than the 500 jump person.

Ian




Ian --
in the contrived example, what types of questions can you ask to each of those fictional jumpers that would produce answers to demonstrate that one person knows more than the other wrt canopy control.


Let me interject with this:

What canopy response would you expect if you pulled an equal distance on one front riser and the opposite rear riser at the same time?

A "helicopter" effect. The canopy would semi-collapse losing air tension in most of it's cells and then start turning on the yaw axis in the direction of the rear riser input.

Trick question.
The answer is dependent on more than just the input on the risers. Depends on the trim angle of the canopy involved, the type of canopy (elliptical or not), and the distance pulled on the risers. (And many others, but you get the idea).

BUT, it is an excellent drill to try on any canopy. Also, front riser and opposite toggle.

top
Jump more, post less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LyraM45

******

Quote

But if you want to talk number of landings, riddle me this:
Do you consider a 2100-jumper who has spent 100 jumps practicing front riser approaches more 'ready' to fly an HP wing than a 550-jumper who has spent 500 jumps practicing the same techniques?



Probably the 2100 jump pilot. They've been under a wing longer. They understand things better and have a more well rounded view on flight characteristics, approaches, watching for traffic, etc, etc. Just because a jumper has been spending every single jump of their first 500 jumps working on a maneuver, doesn't mean they'll have the experience and skills to fly perfectly.


Oh please, you have got to be kidding meB|

This is where I draw the line; enough of this non-sense. I will quote what was said earlier, "Some people have 1000 jumps, other people have the same jump 1000 times."

Stop being ridiculous; generally, if you invest more time into a specific skill you're going to be better at it than someone who has spent less time practicing that specific skill (excluding natural talent). Give those people the credit they deserve.

I'm not surprised at this reply, coming from a guy who is a 100 jump wonder loaded 1.2 on a stiletto. And let me guess.... you've probably got the next elliptical canopy size down in hand and ready to rig up soon? So, I beg your pardon, but YOU'VE got to me kidding ME, right?

As for giving the people who dedicated all of their 500 jumps to HP canopy stuff the credit they deserve-- no where in my post did I poo poo on them and take away credit. I'm sure there is something to be said for somebody (especially somebody who has worked closely with a mentor and a coach and has gone through a proper progression as best they can) who takes the time and dedicates their practice to one certain area. Doesn't mean they are overall more experienced, better skilled, or more ready than somebody who has thousands of jumps and a lot of time under a wing, even if it's only semi elliptical. When it comes down to it, I guess it differs on a case by case basis and not something we can throw a blanket yes or no over with regards to the who is more ready question.

Yup.

Clearly you have no interest in canopy piloting; why do you insist on putting down others who do? I have no interest in freeflying or freestyle but I don't go telling you how to participate (or to not participate at all) in those disciplines.
"Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing than a long life spent in a miserable way." -Alan Watts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Trick question.


Only to those who don't know the answer (the point of asking the question.)
:D:D:D

Quote


BUT, it is an excellent drill to try on any canopy. Also, front riser and opposite toggle.


Which begs the question...why is that exercise NOT included in the SIM for any type of training or discipline?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
popsjumper


Quote

Trick question.


Only to those who don't know the answer (the point of asking the question.)
:D:D:D

Quote


BUT, it is an excellent drill to try on any canopy. Also, front riser and opposite toggle.


Which begs the question...why is that exercise NOT included in the SIM for any type of training or discipline?



Not sure why its not in the SIM, I wish more tasks were in it for people to master. Ask your RD!

If someone does canopy flying with me, its part of the course. Find out what ALL the controls do on YOUR canopy and the COMBINATIONS of those controls (at altitude!). Yes, not all will be something you want to use, but learning that is still adding to your knowledge base.

All these people talking about how "expert" they are under their canopy after 50 or 60 jumps, and most of those were them in the saddle at 3K and landing. If you really want to know your canopy, you need hours in the saddle feeling every nuance of performance and how that performance can be altered with the slightest change (like elbows in or out). Controls should be an extension of your unconscious mind, not something fumbled for in desperation.

Experts in all the disciplines spend hundreds of jumps working on the most subtle of moves to enhance their performance. Big successes are the sum of many, many hours of very small changes that work over time.

top
Jump more, post less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several years ago, you mentioned of the front riser/rear toggle opportunity, along with really stalling the canopy. I mentioned the front riser/rear toggle exercise to someone who had been one of my AFF instructors. He thought the concept was insane, and would be of no benefit.:|

Based on your advice, I learned how to manage a few maneuvers with my canopy, learned how to manage it in a deep stall, and learned a few other techniques from advice Twardo and a few others put on this forum 'back in the day.'

I wish USPA would take the advice some of the better canopy pilots have to offer, and make them part of this "which canopy is suited for who" conversation.

FWIW, the Dutch system works pretty well at keeping people off of canopies they likely shouldn't be on. It may not be perfect; few things are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DSE

Several years ago, you mentioned of the front riser/rear toggle opportunity, along with really stalling the canopy. I mentioned the front riser/rear toggle exercise to someone who had been one of my AFF instructors. He thought the concept was insane, and would be of no benefit.:|

Based on your advice, I learned how to manage a few maneuvers with my canopy, learned how to manage it in a deep stall, and learned a few other techniques from advice Twardo and a few others put on this forum 'back in the day.'

I wish USPA would take the advice some of the better canopy pilots have to offer, and make them part of this "which canopy is suited for who" conversation.

FWIW, the Dutch system works pretty well at keeping people off of canopies they likely shouldn't be on. It may not be perfect; few things are.



I'll take a stab at it... Slowing the canopy down with rear risers or toggles creates more lift. Warping the canopy (as suggested above) can slow down the canopy and not create more lift when done correctly.

So, now you might ask... "why would you need to slow down the canopy while not creating more lift"? :)
Birdshit & Fools Productions

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DcloudZ



Yup.

Clearly you have no interest in canopy piloting; why do you insist on putting down others who do? I have no interest in freeflying or freestyle but I don't go telling you how to participate (or to not participate at all) in those disciplines.



Or, if he did have interest in any of those "other" disiplines, he would seek out advice from those who do have skill AND experience and moreover, he would listen to that advice. But, what the hell do I know? :P
Birdshit & Fools Productions

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool

***

Yup.

Clearly you have no interest in canopy piloting; why do you insist on putting down others who do? I have no interest in freeflying or freestyle but I don't go telling you how to participate (or to not participate at all) in those disciplines.



Or, if he did have interest in any of those "other" disiplines, he would seek out advice from those who do have skill AND experience and moreover, he would listen to that advice. But, what the hell do I know? :P


Eexxxaaaaccctttlllyyyyy

PS-- she ;)
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

Yup.

Clearly you have no interest in canopy piloting; why do you insist on putting down others who do? I have no interest in freeflying or freestyle but I don't go telling you how to participate (or to not participate at all) in those disciplines.



1.) Where do you get from my post that it's clear that I have zero interest in canopy piloting? I have more interest in flight, canopy and other wise, then you evidently understand. I'd like you to tell me exactly what I said, in quote, that makes it implicitly clear that I have not a care in the world for canopy piloting. Why would I even be involved in this conversation if I didn't care?

2.) Where, in quotes, did I put any responsible canopy pilot down?

Thanks in advance for your answers.
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
Please send me any more comments on this topic.
I am collecting all the comments for the mtg.
I have a travel day and reading DZ.com goes down at the mtgs.

BTW, there has been an idea floated that this may be better implemented as a 'kinda-sorta' merit badge, instead of a license.
IOW, you get a 'badge' that says you have such-n-such performance level at such-n-such WL.

Thanks for your feedback.

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rwieder

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



I think this is ridiculously conservative.

I'm gonna list out my canopy progression here, so y'all can scream at me or whatever, but so you can also see where I'm coming from:

Jump 1: 310sqft Mighty Mak. Wingload: .84
Jump 2: 282sqft Raven IV. Wingload: .94
Jump 3: 230sqft Skymaster. Wingload: 1.15

Jumps 4-44 bounced around between those canopies as a student and renter.

Jump 45: Fusion 210. Wingload: 1.26

Following jump numbers are ±5 jumps, it's from memory because I don't have my logbook here:

Jump ~85 I started doing the "downsize checklist".

Jump ~96 I had a brake line snap during opening, so I did the final item on the checklist: A rear riser landing, and damned near landed in the peas to boot.

Jump ~98 I had a hard opening and blew up the canopy. Thanks to Stump from Skydive Radio for grabbing it and my freebag!

Jump ~99-104: Sabre 2 190 demo Wingload: 1.4. Disclosure: The last of these jumps ended in a dislocated toe because the brake line snapped (yes, again. I don't like brake lines!) at the toggle during my flare. Canopy dove hard, I PLFed. Other line looked fine after the jump, so who knows…

Jump ~105: Fusion 190. Wingload: 1.4

I put on some weight, and next thing you know I'm jumping a 1.5 wingload on the Fusion 190 by 150 jumps. By 180 jumps I'd done the whole downsize checklist including getting to downwind the fucker after a 6 month layoff because some asshole (THANKS SUDSY) set the pattern downwind :D

Jump ~185 I will admit I didn't stand up because it was a no-wing off landing from a balloon onto terrain that could have easily ended in a broken ankle, so I put my safety ahead of my dislike of having to clean things and PLFed it.

According to every chart and regulation proposal I've seen, I should have been dead several times over, but I was never uncomfortable under canopy.

Now I'll be the first to admit, my progression was damned aggressive, and I wouldn't probably recommend that. I'm also sure I'll take some fire for that progression in the terms of comments in this thread. But the fact of the matter is that some people DO progress faster than others.

I'm not out to be some rad swooper, and until I lost 50 pounds and sent my wingloading back below 1.3 I'd have said I can't picture myself downsizing again. I still don't necessarily think I will, but it's possible (though I don't like the idea of having a reserve 50sqft bigger than my main and I don't want to downsize my reserve). I'd rather spend the money on jumps.

I'd love to take a canopy course, and probably will this summer if one is held nearby.

The problem is that hard rules create walls that people will run into, even if those rules aren't right for everyone.

If these proposals take into account that bigger canopies at a higher wingload are _NOT REMOTELY_ the same as smaller canopies at the same wingload, I'm willing to listen. But as long as bullshit like "no wingload over until jumps" or "you must have jumps before you may downsize" is floated as a hard and fast rule, I'm going to be 100% against the idea.
cavete terrae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Grue,

The problem with peoples progression is that we are all different. I would say that I am below average in canopy handling skills, despite being on a couple of canopy courses. The powers that be have to make a judgement that balances the people with hot shot skills against the dunces.

I don't think it hurts to enforce lower wing-loadings. You can still start learning high performance landings (double fronts etc) on a large canopy.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nigel99

Hey Grue,

The problem with peoples progression is that we are all different. I would say that I am below average in canopy handling skills, despite being on a couple of canopy courses. The powers that be have to make a judgement that balances the people with hot shot skills against the dunces.

I don't think it hurts to enforce lower wing-loadings. You can still start learning high performance landings (double fronts etc) on a large canopy.



Here's a fun thing to consider: It potentially punishes heavier jumpers financially. The used market for larger rigs and canopies isn't nearly as competitive as for the midsized stuff, and the prices often reflect that, or at least used to. I haven't looked in a while, but I can tell you that the groups on fbook for buying and selling used gear are populated with gear for 5'6" 130lbers
cavete terrae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grue



Here's a fun thing to consider: It potentially punishes heavier jumpers financially.



I don't believe that is a valid reason to abandon the cause of making skydiving safer. Paraplegia punishes jumpers pretty badly - both financially and in numerous other ways.
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MakeItHappen


BTW, there has been an idea floated that this may be better implemented as a 'kinda-sorta' merit badge, instead of a license.



I like that idea, but you have to make it a "cool" thing to have, otherwise people will just ignore it.

In fact, if you can make having the merit badge more of a goal than having a smaller canopy for the jumpers who care about their image, you'll be onto a winner. To do that, I believe you have to get the big names (FLCPA & CRCPL competitors, Alter Ego, PDFT, Skydive Dubai CP guys etc) to vocally endorse it.

That being the case, it may be better to have it issued by a body other than the USPA (which has no cool factor attached to it!)
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nigel99

I don't think it hurts to enforce lower wing-loadings. You can still start learning high performance landings (double fronts etc) on a large canopy.



It doesn't hurt you, but it hurts people who want to downsize.

The problem with regulation is that it nessecarily has to account for the lowest common denominator. So those who progress more slowly end up holding back those who progress more quickly via these rules. There are also always unintended consequences, as pointed out above.

I think mandatory education is a more effective and fair way of solving the problem than making people's canopy choices for them.

More canopy education in AFF, and at each licensing level. We're adults. Adults have the right to make choices, wise or otherwise (See what I did there? :P)
Apex BASE
#1816

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jan-

I am still a big fan of a different canopy course (and requirements) at each level of license. The licenses have all sorts of time and rw requirements, so why not add some canopy requirements that include a class?

Most people learn their basic canopy skills in their AFF or SL class, and then never take a class again. Now we have added the B test, but are missing those above that level. Each license level gives us a chance to evaluate and improve jumpers' canopy skills for the safety of all of us. And certainly, the skills necessary at the B license are not the same as the skills necessary at the D license. Most people have downsized and gotten way higher performance canopies.

Hey, make any rating require a new canopy skill class specific for that rating. Some of the AFFI's I see out there are the worst offenders!

We keep saying we want more education and less regulation, but we are really dropping the ball in the education department when it comes to canopy skills. USPA is over twenty years behind the curve.

Have fun at the meeting! Say hi to everyone for me!

craig
Jump more, post less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm in favor of a canopy licensing program as long as it's not generic. Encouraging people to take canopy courses is a good thing. But holding people back from flying canopies that they're capable of just because others are not capable doesn't make much sense.

There isn't a one size fits all answer for this issue.
"Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing than a long life spent in a miserable way." -Alan Watts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocPop

***

Here's a fun thing to consider: It potentially punishes heavier jumpers financially.



I don't believe that is a valid reason to abandon the cause of making skydiving safer. Paraplegia punishes jumpers pretty badly - both financially and in numerous other ways.

Do you honestly think people won't pad their liebook to save hundreds of dollars?

Education is the answer, as usual, not regulation.
cavete terrae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bluhdow


The problem with regulation is that it nessecarily has to account for the lowest common denominator. So those who progress more slowly end up holding back those who progress more quickly via these rules.



It'll be like being back in school, where the faster kids don't get anywhere near their full potential because they're being held back by a broken system.

We should learn from that lesson and not make another broken system.
cavete terrae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about a mandatory canopy course that the dropzones should hold per year? Say for every ten people your plane(s) hold you should hold 1 canopy course per year. Cessna dz- 1 per year, otter dz 2 per year but say a multiple plane dz that exceeds 60 seats should have at least 4 or 5 per year. At least that way none is forced except the dz to at least organize one.

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