davelepka 4 #76 January 10, 2006 QuoteGive a pilot some data about his vehicle and he is better equipped to fly it. If we have the knowledge we sure haven't betrayed it, or we are terrible communicators. Both of these statements seem to support the idea of better education. This leads me to believe that your beef is with the intended content of the proposed education, not the education itself. This is where some information about your experience and background would add some substance to your point. If Scott Miller tells me, "We just don't know enough to teach it, we need more info", I'll take that as a fact, becasue that guy knows more than most about canopy piloting and teaching it. When an unknown tells me the same thing, I have trouble believing it. Not just as a rule, but in this case, becasue I personally happen to know alot about this subject. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #77 January 10, 2006 Quote This leads me to believe that your beef is with the intended content of the proposed education, not the education itself. It's both. Both that the message is not established and that some of us would go ahead and spread it anyway. We have enough bad mythology and misinformation already...this path leads us right back to where we started. If not backwards.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #78 January 10, 2006 Quote This is the real issue here, pilot readyness. I've said it before, if you could see into the futture, anf tell me that Joe Jumper with 100 jumps is capable of flying a Velo 90, and will not be injured in doing so, I'd be all for Joe getting down with the Velo. I've said this before. Dave, if the question were really about keeping 100 jump wonders off Velo 90s, then the discussion would be short and conclusive. But that ain't what's going on. You instead want to restrict that person to a 230, which is a solution in an entirely different realm of cost/reward. And one that is far less justifiable than the ban on the Velo 90. One is responsible leadership. The other crosses the grey area into nannyism. Brian is a smart cookie who has more than enough factual data to use in making his recommendations. But values come into that as well, and his lead him to propose last year that students should pass the equilivent of the PRO test to get their A. Would turn out great pilots, but at quite a cost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #79 January 11, 2006 A collection of data isn't really that valuable. Like anything else, a beginner is in no position to make value judgements about what they are reading and draw valid conclusions. There are experts who have done this and the knowledge is readily available. People who claim that they cannot find a myriad of valid resources are not really looking. PD provides many seminars. My favorite was a discussion of hook turns with a slide show to illustrate it. There is also a lot of information available from PD here Data, information, knowledge. Brian Germain has published books and does seminars. I cannot estimate the hours that I have seen him standing around, chatting with jumpers. And there are many other excellent sources. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apoil 0 #80 January 11, 2006 Quote You flat called me a liar I called you a liar because you lied about me having sold him the canopy. I called you a liar now because you said I told him his canopy choice was fine. What I don't understand is why you feel so threatened by even considering what I suggested? Because it's coming from me? I just found a post of yours suggesting that one should listen to advice even if you don't like where it's coming from. Quote even after others provided proof. You then started a tap dance routine...Showing how far a person will go to try and not appear wrong. Funny.. I'd say that you did the same thing, both then and now. Quote And my point is how you did the same thing the 100 jump wonders do... you thought you knew better so you basicly told me I didn't know what I was talking about. You were wrong, but it didn't stop you from claiming I knew nothing. Why do you keep making this about that? If I concede that the above is true does it change anything? In fact it might go so far as to prove my point. Just because you DO know exactly what you the deal is, doesn't mean that you are communicating it to people in a way that's going to stop them from getting killed or hurt. I don't claim to be any better at it. But if you really were concerned with everyone's safety, why would you be threatened by this suggestion? Would it help if I concede (again) that more than two years ago I challenged you because my judgment was clouded by having just seen a close friend get seriously injured? And that despite being falsely accused by you of practically causing it I STILL learned something from the incident and tried to use it to become a better instructor and prevent it from happening again? Quote You were the same way when you were new in the sport. How can you expect others to listen when you didn't. >You KNEW me back then? You were around back then? Or are you just >making a wild guess? I based it on your own statements. If I am misremembering your own statements either here or at the dz about the first time you jumped a stiletto then I will take it back. I also know plenty of people who knew you back then. So it's far more than a guess. No need to be so dismissive. Quote Yep and you proved my point that people get bad info and don't listen when people try to give them the correct info....Some go so far as to call the person with the correct info a liar. The correctness of the info isn't the issue! You're proving my point. You need to respect the person you are giving the info. You need to respect their desire to make informed choices, you need to respect the fragility of their ego, which comes from an understanding that they are probably just like you. Read some Dale Carnegie, fer pete's sake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,379 #81 January 11, 2006 >You flat called me a liar . . . >I called you a liar because . . . >You did the same thing the 100 jump wonders do... Take it to PM's. This is not Speaker's Corner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #82 January 11, 2006 QuoteI've said this before. Dave, if the question were really about keeping 100 jump wonders off Velo 90s, then the discussion would be short and conclusive. But that ain't what's going on. You instead want to restrict that person to a 230, which is a solution in an entirely different realm of cost/reward. And one that is far less justifiable than the ban on the Velo 90. One is responsible leadership. The other crosses the grey area into nannyism. No, we want people to be able to fly whatever they can IF they can do it with a reasonable chance of not dying."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #83 January 11, 2006 QuoteAgreed. Give a pilot some data about his vehicle and he is better equipped to fly it. Simple things like the rest of the aviation community has put together. Cruising speed, glide ratio & parameters of control inputs. Right now all we can tell each other is "that one is hella fast" "drives like a bus" etc. because we have not data on it. Funny, I learned more about flying from FLYING. Doing stalls, turns, MCA ect than I ever did from any aerodynamics book or class. The data you talk about is great for a bunch of reasons, but it does not teach you how to fly, FLYING does that. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Firstly, the fact that supprters of canopy regulation and testing are the more experienced of the group only further supprts their stance. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I didn't mean to encourage ad hominem attacks when I pointed out them out... geez give it up already. Thats not an attack its a fact. Why would I or Dave want regulations? Its not like we are gonna make money on them. Who do you think is better able to see a problem...A guy with 4,000 jumps, been in the sport long enough to remember the first Stiletto, and a bunch of ratings that let him teach, or a guy with 100-500 jumps that has only been in the sport a few years?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #84 January 11, 2006 QuoteYou instead want to restrict that person to a 230, which is a solution in an entirely different realm of cost/reward. And one that is far less justifiable than the ban on the Velo 90. I don't want anyone to jump a 230 that could be jupming something else. I'm behind the concept of 1.1 up to 199 jumps, 1.2 up to 299, and so on. Mix in a few *'s for extra light people, and field elevation, and thats that. I don't see the downside to this. You do, but you're not lookinf too far into the future. My first jump was on a 280, and I was fucking thrilled for weeks. Up unitl I made jump number two, also on a 280. I proceeded to jump every nice weekend for the next 10 1/2 years. I did work my way down, but never got past a 190 (ragged out F-111) for the first 100 jumps. That thing had four lengths of binding tape with grommets for a slider, still took 1000 feet to open, and had zero flare (I mean zero, I pounded in 90% of the time) but what do you expect for $100. Either way, I'm still here. You're makng the mistake of thinking that people won;t jump if they can't jump a faster canopy. I've got news for you, skydiving is exciting enough. People will come, they will jump, they will keep jumping. The key is that the culture needs to support the limitations. If everyone sayd that this is the way it is, than who is a newbie to argue with EVERYONE? Will newbies want to go faster, and want to swoop? Yes, they will. This is where we get a bonus side-effect. These new guys that want to swoop wil lhave a new measure of respect for canopy piloting. Now it's a an open and unregulated area, giving the impression it's not that big of a deal. Everyhting that is important is regulated right? Pull altitudes, reserve repacks, gear TSO's. You don't hear much complaining about those things becasue the culture has deemed them important, and by virture of being regulated, they appear to in fact be important ( I know that the repack cycle is in question, but nobody is questioning that a rigger needs to do the work). So put some regulation into canopy piloting, and give it a leg stand on. Have it supported by the other jumpers. The newbie who wants to swoop needs to study hard, jump hard, and earn the right to jump a pocket rocket. I'm no canopy nazi. I love fast parachutes, and I want to see them go faster and further than we can imagine. The trick is that the community can barely handle what we have now. How do we move forward with canopies without moving the open canopy incident numbers up in accordance? Something has to change. Either pilots need to get better at what they're doing, or the canopies have go to dial back their performance. I vote we get the pilots up to speed. Oh, and eductaion is just as important. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #85 January 11, 2006 QuoteEveryhting that is important is regulated right? Pull altitudes, reserve repacks, gear TSO's. You don't hear much complaining about those things becasue the culture has deemed them important, and by virture of being regulated, they appear to in fact be important ( I know that the repack cycle is in question, but nobody is questioning that a rigger needs to do the work). Perfectly said. You don't here people bitching about Pull altitude BSR's. But they did when they came into effect. Now people think 2 grand is low. The SAME thing will happen with a canopy WL BSR. It will seem like a really normal think after the current crop of jumpers quits bitching about it...Just like the pull altitude BSR's."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jumpah 0 #86 January 11, 2006 Anyone got metrics of serious injuries/deaths due to lack of skill on HP canopies broken down by age and disregarding skill and # of jumps? I'm curious if the results are skewed at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #87 January 11, 2006 QuoteA collection of data isn't really that valuable. Like anything else, a beginner is in no position to make value judgements about what they are reading and draw valid conclusions. Without a collection of data, like everyone else, an expert is in no position to make quantitative judgements and draw valid conclusions. Whereas, a beginner or an expert is well suited to disqualify any so-called expert who has no data.QuoteData, information, knowledge. The only knowledge that's available is groundless. It doesn't matter who says it or how many neat swooping photos they have. It's weak until it's presented with the data that was used to prepare it. It's particularly weak if there wasn't any data used to prepare it to begin with.Look at the summaries on Gary Peek's website on parachute opening shock and fall rates and you'll see the difference between a slideshow / chat / seminar and real data. Unfortunately I don't have a good topical example of using statistical inference handy, but I assure you it looks nothing like anything I've seen so far in the discussion of canopy advice. Stat 101 type stuff...it's not mysterious or anything.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #88 January 11, 2006 QuoteYou don't here people bitching about Pull altitude BSR's. Think again! Those might have gone to BASE, so they can pull as low as they dare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,379 #89 January 11, 2006 >Look at the summaries on Gary Peek's website on parachute > opening shock and fall rates and you'll see the difference between a > slideshow / chat / seminar and real data. An excellent example! Gary knows a LOT about parachute testing and construction because of his work in that area. However, he'd be the first to tell you that he's not a high performance canopy flight coach; he doesn't jump very high performance canopies. (Although I think he's finally given up his Manta that he used to jump at WFFC.) Scott Miller, however, IS a very good HP canopy coach, even though he doesn't have as much data as Gary does. If your objective is learning how to safely swoop heavily loaded canopies, he would be a better choice. His experience is what matters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #90 January 11, 2006 Quote You don't here people bitching about Pull altitude BSR's. But they did when they came into effect. Now people think 2 grand is low. The change in canopy designs towards more snively openings must be considered here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #91 January 11, 2006 Quote I don't want anyone to jump a 230 that could be jupming something else. I'm behind the concept of 1.1 up to 199 jumps, 1.2 up to 299, and so on. Mix in a few *'s for extra light people, and field elevation, and thats that. Hey, that's a far cry from other discussions, including charts that declare certain death for exceeding 1.0. And you're only a hair off my "KISS" proposal where you could go as far as .2 over instead of .1. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,114 #92 January 11, 2006 QuoteThe change in canopy designs towards more snively openings must be considered here.The opening altitude BSRs came long before snivelly openings were particularly popular. Wendy W.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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #93 January 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe change in canopy designs towards more snively openings must be considered here.The opening altitude BSRs came long before snivelly openings were particularly popular. ok - thanks for pointing that out, Wendy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #94 January 12, 2006 QuoteThink again! Those might have gone to BASE, so they can pull as low as they dare. We are talking about SKYDIVING not BASE. Some could have gone to SCUBA or underwater basket weaving also. But they don't count since they left. But the simple fact is in SKYDIVING most think that the altitudes are reasonable, and some think they are low. Thats not the case like it was back then....People who opposed it thought pull altitudes would ruin the sport. Guess what? It's still here."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #95 January 12, 2006 QuoteWithout a collection of data, like everyone else, an expert is in no position to make quantitative judgements and draw valid conclusions. Actually, knowing something is how you get to be known as an "expert" in any field, so I tend to give their opinion a great deal more weight than "everyone else". Someone who spent 15 years designing, building, and test-piloting canopies does not have to give me data. I want to hear their conclusions. QuoteWhereas, a beginner or an expert is well suited to disqualify any so-called expert who has no data. No, not at all. A beginner is not well suited to disqualify anyone. Plus, to become an expert, you have to have some background. It's not a hat that you get free with a bowl of soup. QuoteIt doesn't matter who says it or how many neat swooping photos they have. It's weak until it's presented with the data that was used to prepare it. Feel free to ignore them. QuoteLook at the summaries on Gary Peek's website on parachute opening shock and fall rates and you'll see the difference between a slideshow / chat / seminar and real data. You seem eager to discount seminars given by industry experts. Have you attended any? Anyway, feel free to ignore them. Personally, I have learned a great deal. Your choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Feeblemind 1 #96 January 12, 2006 Trae, I have read through this complete post. Alot of this information is very constructive (with the exception of the cat fight). I feel very fortunate that I jump with a group that take the time and give back to the sport. I also to feel very fortunate that I had a great instructor and great mentors. I have only been in sport for a year and I feel as though the senior jumpers have shared a wealth of knowledge with me. Yes, I have been willing to listen and apply what they have learned from others mistakes. With that said, they (specifically Bytch) has pounded one thing into my head - you are responsible for you own ass You can take that statement however you feel appropriate but I took a universal approach. 1) Safety starts before you board the plane, (once I rushed and misrouted my chest stap. I caught it at around 3,000 feet on one of my three gear checks. I almost shat myself and it ruined the rest of the skydive. I was very shaken by what could of happened. Now I am ready to exit when I board. 2) Be safe in the air and jump to your skill level. Yes we all push it to some degree, but thats how we learn. I have made errors in this as well and learned from them. If I am trying a new skill I get one on one or two on one coaching with others whom I knoware profecient coaches. 3) Get a canopy over your head that is landable. A good friend told me the 3 - P's Parachute (get a safe landable one over your head) Parahike (better to land safely and walk, then to push it in any of a number of ways that can result in injury), Paramedic (failure of one of the first two P' generally result in the calling of the third. 4) Get professional canopy coaching, it's a small investment in sport that will provide you with basic knowledge and skills that may possibley save your life. 5) I was also taught if your uncomfortable person on the load (safety, not just cause you think their a jackass) get off the plane!! I cannot control what others choose to do, I can only control whether or not I am in the sky with them. There are some that like to fly low and fast, well the landing area is large and I avoid swoopers alley or I just sit in brakes until their down. Yes it is unfortunate when someone who has been warned bounces. Yes it makes the DZ look bad as well as our sport. I may be delusional here, but I think most DZM's, DZO's and S, T, and A's will prevent a jumper from flying a canopy, wing suit, etc. that they are not-qualified to fly. With that said stupid people do stupid things and it's not limited to what canopy they choose to fly. Since I suck at typing and am starting to get carpal tunnel writing this just remeber You're responsible for your own ass Fire Safety Tip: Don't fry bacon while naked Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trae 1 #97 January 12, 2006 in reply to ' You're responsible for your own ass " ....................... You've summed up nicely here. Ultimately I agree with you. However.... we have a duty of care to these new arrivals. In the skydiving world there is a constant stream of people who want to experience falling down to the planet. These people place their trust in the people who are doing ,teaching and regulating our sport. Over the years many regulations have been set in stone and most now appear more like common sense rather than resticting laws from a nanny state of mind. It's my prediction that our sport will rise above the apparent lack of responsibility it is currently displaying in some areas( growing pains?) . In the past many great leaders set the pace for all of us. Unfortunately we have outgrown some of their well founded guidance and are now under some influence from a 'point break ' type devil may care subconsciousness. I'd like to know who is in charge these days cause to me it appears that no-one has the power, inclination or balls to say 'Enough is enough. You want to fly a fast parachute ..you learn how properly from some-one who TRULY knows what they're talking about.." this won't stop all accidents but it WILL reduce them. Such people are out there and their experience and caring natures are self evident from the writings and work they have done. Hopefully their voices will be heard above the rabble rules of anything goes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Feeblemind 1 #98 January 12, 2006 QuoteI'd like to know who is in charge these days cause to me it appears that no-one has the power, inclination or balls to say 'Enough is enough. You want to fly a fast parachute ..you learn how properly from some-one who TRULY knows what they're talking about.." this won't stop all accidents but it WILL reduce them. You are correct in this will be very difficult to contain since you can buy whatever you want on the web. Common sense does not exist in some and you will never be able to change that. We can only hope that AFFI's , coaches and mentors can try to be the voice of reason to us newbies to brevent us from becoming the next statistic. Fire Safety Tip: Don't fry bacon while naked Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #99 January 12, 2006 QuoteWe can only hope that AFFI's , coaches and mentors can try to be the voice of reason to us newbies to brevent us from becoming the next statistic. Should apply to up jumpers as well. How many times have you seen some fool land 90 degrees off from the group before him? He shrugs it off when an Instructor talks to him about it. Only after an accident will people take notice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #100 January 12, 2006 QuoteHey, that's a far cry from other discussions, including charts that declare certain death for exceeding 1.0. Those charts are from other folks. I supported Brian Germains old chart. where the first digit of your jump numbers is equal to, or greater then the second digit of your WL. I didn't even read his new chart, so I'm not sure what he's got in there. As far as exceeding the chart, canopy size, field elevation, and canopy model have alot to do with how safe or unsafe excceding may be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
