Liemberg 0 #101 March 9, 2003 Quote Sigh... I see a "Liemberg" discussion comming... You can back out any time... And the 'rules of engagement' are quite simple, I believe. Attack my idea's, refute my beliefs, convince the audience. Moderators have the last word. (OK morons was a bit harsh - but directed at a group rather than an individual. You, of course, though very vocal in expressing their beliefs, are not part of that group.) Quote Remember the old english wishdom? What is, isn't always what ought to be. But who's to say what is? Who died and left you in charge? (yes I know, another old usenet trick... Quote You shouldn't "ban" someone from your DZ, cause that's only transferring the problem to a DZ that isn't familiar with this "problem" Though I can, I usually don't ban people from my place, I convince them. If others prefer banning then it should be up to me what I do with it when those exiles turn up at my place. If I start banning people from my place it should be up to others what to do with that. Right now, all the rule change has managed to do is turn a too small canopy into a forbidden fruit. We all know that tastes a lot better than what is allowed...Are you sure that a 'miscalculated high performance landing' under a Sabre loaded 0,9 is always survivable? I highly doubt that. Quote It doesn't have the "crater looking for an impact side" sticker on it Though the sticker indeed is "mine", 'the crater looking for a grid reference' can be atributed to Winsor Naugler, I believe... My working hypothesis is they all wear stickers - I take it from there... Quote those rules will be breached massively Now you lost me? First you say everyone at your DZ already has a canopy which fits this system, secondly you spend 2 alinea's telling me you have no problem staying in control? Well right now ANY canopy that they were using prior to the rule change fits the system - so if problems were existing before the 1th of march, what has changed? Secondly I was in control prior to that date and I didn't say those breaches were going to take place at my DZ. But you've got to be living in a parallel universe to think a complicated system like the one at hand has any chance to survive in the long run in the real world if it is a rule and not a guideline. If a rule change were neccessary how about: "Downsizing? Everybody must do x jumps opening high familiarizing with the canopy. Below C - license you need instructors written permission for the specific canopy." Plain, simple, controllable - and don't forget someone is signing off. "Which moron did allow YOU to jump with this handkerchief?!?" "Uhm, his name and license number are in the logbook sir..." "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #102 March 9, 2003 It's not the equipment that we allow skydivers to fly it's the education ,or lack of, that we provide. The attitude of the young jumper (remember that bulletproof time you had) that wants it now and not willing to take the time to learn along with having instructors/coaches/mentors that simply do not know what they are saying about canopies, wing loading, performance, perceptions, or skills. When I purchased my first Stiletto in 94 I had to sign a waiver and send in copies of my log book before I could purchase the canopy. I don't think we need to go back to that however, we DO need to EDUCATE! If not some one will REGULATE! Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #103 March 9, 2003 Educate, not regulate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #104 March 9, 2003 err - OK - I searched through this thread quickly, so I hope I'm not repeating what might be an obvious question. If you look at the bulls-eye chart, the required canopy size for class 1 and 2 are both 170. It kinda looks like the canopy size for class 1 should be a 190, rather than 170. Anybody else agree? I'm guessing this is just a misprint. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USPA 0 #105 March 9, 2003 No this isn't a misprint. The idea is that you want to prevent certain canopies to be used for the first jumps, which can be used after people have made the first 10 jumps. But sadly to say, DZ politics have played a major role here.....The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #106 March 9, 2003 Quote Educate, not regulate. To be completely fair it must be noted that the new dutch system tries to do both, since it prescribes 'transition jumps' where the downsizer is mandated (below C) / advised (C and above) to make canopy familiarization jumps with a prescribed/advised program, that consist of all sorts of things you would want to do with a new canopy. Jumps should be solely directed at the canopy, i.e. solojumps from 6000ft or above, making a H&P and finishing the program above 2000 ft. Since I have been doing that (though not as extensive as they put into the rules now) with every new toy I purchased since the Para Commander I jumped in 1982, I have no problem with 'advising with great emphasis' something like that to the youngsters. The proof of the pudding however is in the eating and for the canopy that would always be the landing of the dang thang... At my place I happen to have a huge field for the students but the big boys of course are allowed to look cool and land near the hangar. I have one rule however which is: New canopy? Land out at the students field - just like I do myself. Make stand up landings near the target, then return to the big boys landing area. Come to think of it, before now I never did write that down somewhere, yet cannot remember any 'violations' of this 'rule'... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #107 March 10, 2003 Exactly. I'm glad someone got it. I hope others do to. Blues to you my brother. J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kinaa 0 #108 March 10, 2003 QuoteCategorie III (wingload max 1.3, > 100 jumps) NAA: Parafoil Is that some kind of mistake? Anyone know why is Parafoil in that group? Thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
relyon 0 #109 March 10, 2003 QuotePlease don't get distracted by the example. I picked it for rhetoric reasons. I have no idea what you're referring to. Your post mentioned the difficulty of catching a floating CRW newbie. I replied with valid suggestions of how to correct the stated problem. It's your rhetoric that's distracting. Bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #110 March 10, 2003 QuoteIt's your rhetoric that's distracting. I apologize if my rhetoric is distracting instead of helping to get my point across. Of course I wouldn't tell anyone who is in charge at a particular DZ what to allow and what not. I just wished they would do me the same courtesy. In the last few years I have seen a development in dutch skydiving where no one is ever rendering account for what happens, yet I get more and more detailed rules and regulations. Most of those stem directly from the bigger DZ's that have a survey problem (to many people jumping at the same time while the person in charge has a problem estimating their individual abilities). Survey problems are tackled best with a general rule so I can understand what they want to do and why they want to do it. But I dont have the same survey problem - therefore I don't need those rules. For the sake of simplicity and a whole bunch of legal reasons I don't want rules that I can do without. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USPA 0 #111 March 10, 2003 FYI Let you law-student friend look up the verdict on 'the parents of a drowned student' vs 'The DZ in the far south west of the Netherlands'. The BSR's were quoted in that one - especially the fact that in the eyes of the court they were breached. I forgot to go into this, but I noticed you keep getting back on legal complications. I have the verdict in front of me and just read it again. (did it before, but wanted to be sure). I read the verdict as the BVR being a advice, it then uses the BVR as a guideline. Even more specific to this case: It also says the student couldn't be held acountable for breaking the rules because she was still in training. These new rules wont be broken by any1 on student status. The ruling therefore implies that when one is capable to know the rules (you have to learn rules for you A license!). The jumper him or herself in accountable. BTW I just looked at your profile... ROFLMAO.... licensing organisation : RLD.... Man you don't like the KNVvL at all do you! On a more serieus note... I saw you jumped a PISA canopy , because I wouldn't want to lose such a colourfull person in the Netherlands (critism keeps every1 on their toes ), did you check the slider stops?The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #112 March 10, 2003 Quote I saw you jumped a PISA canopy , because I wouldn't want to lose such a colourfull person in the Netherlands (critism keeps every1 on their toes ), did you check the slider stops? Been checking sliderstops since before you knew parachutes existed kiddo... And - at the risk of boring all our international friends to death - on the verdict: The student couldn't be held accountable for her so-called 'breach of safety regulations' (as had been argued by the parachute centers lawyer) but I was refering to the boat that was supposed to be there (and had to be there according to the regulations had the waterjump been planned) - that's where the court saw a serious breach of the safety regulations on the part of the parachute centre. And that's what got them convicted IIRC. Now of course one could argue that the waterjump hadn't been planned and therefore a boat nor a life jacket were mandatory ... but AFAIK they were smart enough not to take it to a higher court. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USPA 0 #113 March 11, 2003 True, but you now agree with me, that is was based on "what should be reasonable" instead of the exact text of the BVR! (which again is logical, cause the BVR isn't a law)The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #114 March 11, 2003 Quote True, but you now agree with me, that is was based on "what should be reasonable" instead of the exact text of the BVR! (which again is logical, cause the BVR isn't a law) But my main point was that it was discussed in a court and - apparently - taken so seriously there that it found its way into the verdict. Note that on the one hand the lawyer tries to put the whole blame on the drowned victim, saying 'BVR violation - student not executing proper prescribed procedures for water landing' while the prosecutor says 'BVR violation, when landing in water DZ must have boat at hand for every jumper and the jumper must wear lifejacket' Both parties missing the point about what was actually written in the dutch BSR's at that time, yet the BVR was read by the court and played a role in the verdict. I don't see that happening when we are talking about guidelines. So, in an ever more litigious world (though in Holland not as severe as in the USA) when people 'try to hang me in a court of law' I don't want to supply the rope myself, nor do I want "my governing organization" (KNVvL) to supply it. (Though I must say they actually re-wrote the part about waterlanding right after the accident and before the lawsuit... talk about feeble attempts... ) "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Seagull 0 #115 March 11, 2003 Sounds interesting, but I have a Query, Were would that put me. I have progessed Quickly on certain canopies, and basically have been jumping a loading of 1:6 at the moment ( although still in a learning stage) and have only 360 jumps which would put me and my canopy into the IV or V situation although by the # of jumps I may not be allowed too. Although my CI and DZSO, have basically said yes he is capable of using that conopy, at that loading Just athought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #116 March 11, 2003 >Sounds interesting, but I have a Query, Were would that put me. Any system that mandates minimum #'s of jumps for a given canopy loading will be 'unfair' to someone. On the plus side, jumping a larger canopy will not put you in a dangerous situation. In any case, I would be more concerned with a jumper's ability to fly the thing under all conditions than the actual loading. If you can do all the survival stuff (90 deg flat turns at 50 feet, 45 degree turns in the flare, rear riser landings etc etc) then that's the important part. Being able to do that prevents people from getting a canopy that's over their heads, and that's the purpose of the original rules. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tibby 0 #117 March 11, 2003 Seagull: For what I understand, the new dutch rule applies to people who want to change canopy type/size now. You can keep on jumping whatever you are jumping now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Seagull 0 #118 March 12, 2003 Will keep jumping it, and yes have done all those thing's flat turns, rear riser landing's, turn landing's, quick stop landing's ( starting a swoop, then having to deck it quickly), and a couple of other's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #119 March 12, 2003 Quote You can keep on jumping whatever you are jumping now Since he is not living in Holland, but in Australia, he can change canopies also without much concern about dutch canopy regulations... D**n! Again nobody seems to accept our moral & juristic leadership... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Seagull 0 #120 March 12, 2003 You got it I'am in Oz, But was just making a piont, ability and skill make it hard to enforce reg's, when there are people who will advance quicker than other's, but are restricted As in all endevor's there should be a way for a CI or instructor's to make a call about a person, and have that written in so that person is not restricted by paper call's (reg's etc) And that person does not lose interest, or is ostriced for there ability. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #121 March 15, 2003 "On the plus side, jumping a larger canopy will not put you in a dangerous situation."Never say Never. You can put yourself in a dangerous situation under ANY canopy. J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #122 March 17, 2003 >Never say Never. You can put yourself in a dangerous situation under > ANY canopy. Well, yeah. But going to a larger canopy will not put you in any _more_ dangerous situations than sticking with the smaller canopy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #123 March 17, 2003 Stupid Low Altitude Maneuvers Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Waldschrat 0 #124 October 19, 2005 QuoteCategorie V (wingload = unlimited, > 1000 jumps) • Performance Designs: Velocity • Parachutes de France: Ninja • Precision: Xaos 21, Xaos 27 • Icarus: Extreme FX, VX • Paratec: X-wing, Fandango Rofl, the Fandango is in Categorie V......??! A girl on my dropzone with 170 jumps fly this wing. She had a wingload from 1.23.....Why is this chute so high estimatet?? Her teacher, an older jumper, recommend the chute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 0 #125 October 19, 2005 It's been moved to IV, there've been some changes to the original canopy list: http://www.parachute.nl/fileadmin/knvvlpa_upload/pdf/bvrbb.pdf ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
