New Dutch Canopy Regulation, Opinions?

[dragon2 0]

What I don´t understand is that some people want to place/are placing responsibility with the retailers/dealers.

I can order most anything I want online. Some things seem te require proof of some kind, but I presume that could be easily faked. Or you can get another, qualified, jumper to get it for you.
Not to mention what I could get my hands on 2nd hand.

Now that retailer or jumper can offer advice, which I may or may not follow (depending on the person).

In the end, I strongly believe every jumper is responsible for him/her self.

With the exception of really new jumpers who don´t yet know better.

I think everybody can/should ask around for opinions (manufacturer, instructors, riggers, friends, the seller), and what your own instructor says should strongly count. Like I said, I believe everybody is responsible for him/her self and you cannot lay that responsibility at someone else´s feet (except your instructors´). I wouldn´t expect a retailer to refuse to sell me a non-appropriate canopy. But that retailer might expect it of *me* to not ask for one.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"In the end, I strongly believe every jumper is responsible for him/her self."

I absolutely agree with you Saskia, self regulation by the jumpers is the ideal situation, however it doesn't seem to be working.

"I wouldn´t expect a retailer to refuse to sell me a non-appropriate canopy."
I think you'd be surprised.

In these litigious times, it would be nice for the likes of Square1 to have some form of accepted guidance in these matters. I'm guessing Lisa (Skybytch) gets all sorts of strange requests, and has to exercise an element of judgement in who she sells certain canopies to. I suspect that this is one of the reasons the normally reserved Kate Cooper is taking a keen interest in this subject. She is part owner of Square1, and as such may be sued in the US if they sell an unsuitable canopy to a novice.....I'm sure we have all heard tales of bizarre court cases from the US...example the lady sueing Macdonalds because her coffee burnt her as she spilled it whilst driving etc...
Even frivolous court cases can cost the defendent a lot of money.
I genuinely hope it never comes to that, and I guess SQ1 carries insurance for this. But if their premiums can be reduced by following accepted guidance in canopy selection, then I would like to think their premiums and hence their prices might drop slightly as well.

I'm pretty sure Lisa can provide examples of jumpers asking her for canopies that they have no business buying.

"I think everybody can/should ask around for opinions " ask ten jumpers their opinions, and you will get ten different answers. See any "which is the best..." thread here.

Hey, I see you hang with Henny, say hi to him and Selma from Scottish Dave, if you see them.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[USPA 0]

Ok,

I'm gonna claim this one... (sorry)
Just wanted to note that I printed the list here and translated it.....

But you should thank the EC/TC comitee of the KNVvL in the Netherlands... their subcomitee made up the "dutch-bullseye" and according list...

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...

[dragon2 0]

Quote

I guess I'm just tired of being part of the small minority that doesn't seem to matter to the people who make regulations like this.

This may be a good guideline for 80% of skydivers. But you still need to think about the 10% that are very light and also the 10% that are very heavy. A heavy jumper may have to stay on a 210 until they get to 500 jumps.

Why not take those people into consideration by adding a weight category. Lower the minimum canopy size slightly for people who are under a specified weight. Lower the max wingloading slightly for people over a specified weight.
.

Heh heh we have one jumper, still a student (I think), who zoomed past one of our instructors with a pocket rocket . This student jumped a Skymaster 230. Now he´s only allowed the Skymaster 280´s. He´s a kickboxer I think, so it´s all muscle. But it´s a whole lot of muscle

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[rainman 0]

I'm glad to see people whose opinions I've come to respect (skybytch, billvon and others) like the new Dutch system apart from some children's diseases!

By the way: At 100 jumps, with a merit 190 at 1:1.05 I'm a cat III jumper with a cat II canopy at a cat I wingload.

Rainman

[Push 0]

Quote

I see your point. That's why I'd be in favor of something like this as a USPA produced guideline in the US - but not as a part of the BSR's. Even though I've been baggin' on sandi in this thread (don't hate me sandi! Not yet anyway! ), there will always be exceptions to the rules - people who don't fit the "norm." imho there needs to be room in the "rules" to accomodate them.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I think it would work best as guidelines to instructors of canopy flight. If we make such instruction mandatory, ie, you need to be certified by an approved canopy instructor before downsizing to anything, we can see the fatality reports cut in half.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[dragon2 0]

Quote

CRW with just over 100 jumps? Very good. Welcome to the "dark" side!

Well that's what you get for hanging out with Team Teuge a lot, and with the Tops Clan at the same DZ

Still trying to get my B on CREW but I'm having some probs because of my light WL. I need 3 other people to fly a boat (well, WL 1), esp. for me. So far, no luck. Hence my prob with not being allowed to jump that Lightning 126.
So far I'm a "pro" at following CREW people out, which is also good practice as I want to start filming CREW in the near future. But I need to work on really CREW-ing more before that.
I'm also "world famous" for my CREW exits: French world champion at the European Championships in Ampuria last year: So, whatcha doing? Ehm, mainly freefly. Yeah I know you're good at *that*!.

Gotta fix that before thinking about camera's...

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[riddler 0]

I've seen a lot of good posts on this thread and I have to believe that making recommendations like this is a great idea. Making it the law would be a bad idea.

There are too many variables that go into canopy and landing skills. AggieDave mentioned coaching - that is probably the strongest factor, IMO. One person mentioned that lighter people have a naturally low wing-loading to begin with.

I would also add that CanuckInUSA and I jump from 17-18,000 feet ASL and land at 5000 ASL.
Higher = less air = go faster = land faster = different canopy recommendations.

Also, I think many people have suggested that the same size canopies from different manufacturers behave very different.

Guidelines and recommendations are great - they help us understand where we are in relation to the average and can maybe hint that we are too far out of bounds, or if we have room to play with smaller canopies. But the best information comes from our own instructors and mentors - you have to actually WATCH people fly and land before you can make a statement about what they should be doing. Our fellow skydivers and instructors that we jump with every weekend (or day) are in the best position to mention to each other that your canopy may be too small or too aggressive. They are also a great resource to ask if you are considering purchasing a new canopy - they've SEEN you land. I don't think this sort of self-policing is all that hard to do. We are, after all, a community, are we not?

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I would also add that CanuckInUSA and I jump from 17-18,000 feet ASL and land at 5000 ASL.
Higher = less air = go faster = land faster = different canopy recommendations. "

I can't imagine the Dutch bothers and sisters would have spent too much time pondering density altitude effects.....

But you make a good and valid point that hasn't been raised yet.
I'm seeing this less and less of a panacea, another set of 'rules' would hav eto be dreamt up to adjust for local altitude. Although still agree with you Riddler, in that it makes reasonable guidance, as opposed to regulation.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[skybytch 259]

An area of these regulations that hasn't been discussed here yet is the currency requirements included in Cats III - V.

Personally I think they're a bit lenient for the higher categories. Cat IV specifies a minimum of 50 jumps in the last year - that's only 4 jumps a month, yet the wingloading max is 1.5.

Cat V is unlimited in wingloading yet the currency requirement is only 100 jumps in the last 12 months - about 8 jumps a month. To me, two jumps per weekend doesn't seem like current enough to be able to safely handle a crossbraced canopy at 2.0.

[dragon2 0]

Quote

An area of these regulations that hasn't been discussed here yet is the currency requirements included in Cats III - V.

Personally I think they're a bit lenient for the higher categories. Cat IV specifies a minimum of 50 jumps in the last year - that's only 4 jumps a month, yet the wingloading max is 1.5.

Cat V is unlimited in wingloading yet the currency requirement is only 100 jumps in the last 12 months - about 8 jumps a month. To me, two jumps per weekend doesn't seem like current enough to be able to safely handle a crossbraced canopy at 2.0.

i think the same. However, with the fine (ahem) weather we have here sometimes (ahem), 100/jumps a year is doable. If you can´t hang out at the DZ every weekend, much higher numbers may be difficult.

I spend just about every weekend there, but I tend to stay on the ground fairly easily in winds/turbulence. I can do about 200 jumps/year that way, also finance-wise.

But those jumps are mainly in summer, even tho I´ve snuck in a few to keep current (and just plain have fun of course).

A lot of jumpers here hibernate, meaning the first few weekend of the year with really good weather have been.. interesting..
I suppose most of the jumpers here are current only in summer.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[ernokaikkonen 0]

Quote

I suppose most of the jumpers here are current only in summer.

Exactly... A six-month skydiving season changes things a bit. Not everyone can live in California.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

A six-month skydiving season changes things a bit. Not everyone can live in California.

Ahhh yes. I didn't consider that.

The six-month season does change things, but even at that I think the Cat V currency requirement could be a bit higher.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

One would think that taking six months off and then immediately jumping a category five type of canopy come spring time would be like playing with fire. But then what do I know, I've never flown a category five type of canopy.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[PhreeZone 15]

I've taken 4 months off and hopped right back on my Cat 4 canopy after only a handful of jumps on it the fall before. Yes, the pucker factor can be there. But I felt safer jumping a canopy I knew some about rather then grabbing something else that I was unsure about.

Shortened jumping seasons really changes things a lot. I'm only really current 8-9 months for the year. But in 8 months I average 200+ jumps. 100 jumps in 6 months is 16 per month, better then most the jumpers that replied to the poll on the front page of here seem to do. People who do hundreds of jumps seem to usually be TM's and I'm still unconvinced that flying a tandem for 100 times will turn you into a swoop god...

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

I've seen a lot of good posts on this thread and I have to believe that making recommendations like this is a great idea. Making it the law would be a bad idea.

That's why I propagated on the dutch skydiving forum to make it a RECOMMENDATION instead of putting it in the BSR's as they did. As a DZO I see a whole can of worms opening up with this. I like vague rules and had no problem whatsoever telling people they couldn't jump a certain canopy since I felt it was to small for their abilities. I don't think I ever allowed anything at my place that was outside of the guidelines as they are written down now, but I never bothered to write them down - much less would I incorporate them in the RULES.
The problem with those written RULES are that they - though not the law as such, have a funny way of surfacing in a court of law, when a mourning relative or an unhappy insurance company decides to take a shot at the most obvious party - the DZ where it happened...
Also (from dutch jurisprudence) the KNVvL (dutch USPA) can be held responsible for the upholding of all their rules at all their affiliated DZ's.
(The dutch gymnastics federation found that out and paid dearly for that knowledge...)
When you make a rule you just cannot say 'O, well - this is experimental and if it comes in handy we might break it at our own discretion'. With a recommendation you can, with a rule you can't.
Anybody would agree that it should be possible for Saskia to jump that Lightning 126 and participate in CRW that has any chance of success. Now she can't for it would break the rule. (notice they already refused it, IIRC...)
Also, now that it has become a rule, it can be turned around quickly, where you would feel you have a certain 'right' to jump a certain canopy. I might disagree but that was a lot easier for me when it wasn't written down in the way it is now. (I know I still can refuse anything, but...)

One final note in 'the blame game'
Of course the responsibility for letting people jump at your place with canopies that are to much to handle for their experience lies with the DZ and not with the people that sold them the canopy. You check the logbooks, you have phone, fax & email to consult your colleagues should you not trust the logbook and certain customers - the ones that make headlines in the news and dents in the DZ - you just don't want.
When you sell canopies, that is a whole different game and other than informing and warning you bear no responsibility. Got a million bucks? You can buy a ferrari and the sales rep doesn't have to check your driving abilities. The fact that most if not all skydiving gear dealers do ask about it is wonderful but not legally necessary.

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[USPA 0]

Quote

Anybody would agree that it should be possible for Saskia to jump that Lightning 126 and participate in CRW that has any chance of success.

Uhm, I might disagree with you with that... (along with others of the instruction group of Teuge)

On another note... I've been talking to a law student about this, and she said the following. For the court of law it doesn't matter if it's regulations or not. The court only sees the BVR (BSR) as an advice (and not a law), therefor making it a guideline has technical the same status as making it regulation. (in the eye's of the court).

Also, you may have been responisble in this matter, we have to look at the whole on the Netherlands. And general speaking (it's not only a Dutch problem I think) people are being flown by their canopies, instead of the other way around. I'm surprised by this discussion in total, cause almost no1 goes into that. People are not only dying of lowturns, also landingfatalities as a whole, landinginjuries, reserve which lead to fatalities and reserve's in general, all of them have a high percentage which can be atributed to fast/responisve canopies. Which doesn't make the canopies bad, but it has to be flown/packed by someone who knows what he is doing or at least has the experience the handle the shit he or she is facing.

Also, cummon you and I both know that making it a guideline in The Netherlands mean shit. Everyone is an exception, especially on the big DZ's (Texel and Teuge) which are also a haven for people that are being "kicked off" their "home DZ".

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...

[Liemberg 0]

Well Paul, if you have figuered out how to successfully do CRW with one participant 'floating like hell' and that participant being the newbie, I sure would like to know how to do that...

(When I did my first one, ages ago, I was told to keep my heading and I would be docked - but that didn't happen for several 1000 feet since I floated to much. That was a jump with one of the maffia brothers, ruling dutch champion at the time...)

Other than that I think you must agree that we now have 'an experimental rule' - that is bad IMHO and I explained why I think so.

edit: He Paul, don't use edit for reply

Quote

Also, cummon you and I both know that making it a guideline in The Netherlands mean shit. Everyone is an exception, especially on the big DZ's (Texel and Teuge) which are also a haven for people that are being "kicked off" their "home DZ".

Then I would urge 'the big boys' (Texel and Teuge) most strongly to make rules and regulations for their own place and not bother the rest of the country with "solutions" to their problems...
What is going to stop them? I have rules at my place that you better not break jumping at Ameland and they are nowhere to be found in the BSR's.
The 'downsizing to fast outside of the guidance of instructors' problem is non-existing at smaller DZ's.
I never had a problem with it and would I have one in the future I would gladly say goodbye to that particular customer.

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.

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[USPA 0]

What someone wants to do, never dictates how I aproach safety in my book!

Ok, your reply about dz rules is exactly our problem. First, I know of people who downsize to fast on small DZ's. (It may even be harder to stop them on an small DZ/club, because no1 is really in charge (PCA as an exexption off course))
Secondly... gues where are those people who are sent away at smaller DZ's are going too? And a new DZ hasn't got a clue about that persons past and skills...

To be tottally honest, I think the rules (with exceptions of the "outcasts" described above) are most usefull on the smaller DZ, because now an instructor can hide behind the rules, without being afraid of "impopularity". But then again, I'm biased off course, and because I have to do my I-exams this year I'd best shut up now....

PS
I didn't reply through ad edit, I just pushed the wrong button and continued writing the original...

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...

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

To be tottally honest, I think the rules (with exceptions of the "outcasts" described above) are most usefull on the smaller DZ, because now an instructor can hide behind the rules, without being afraid of "impopularity".

Anyone who lets 'popularity' dictate the decisions he takes as an S&TA /instructor and therefore needs rules 'to hide behind' is in the wrong place. Once you accept that job, you inevitably gonna step on peoples toes. Writing rules for every conceivable situation is not going to help, though guidelines may come in handy - and you can hide behind those just as easily, should you feel the need to.

I know it is easy for me ('Which part of NO you didn't understand? Which part of BOSS you didn't understand?') but it should be just as easy for others, you just put your foot down. Putting my foot down was a trick I mastered as a club instructor a long time ago, but maybe that skill got lost the last few years.
If the big DZ you jump at has a problem controlling and overseeing somebody that I just sent away, should I adapt new rules? Come on, you gotta be kidding.

From what I have seen here, I found the 'swedish chart' a lot easier and more straightforward as a guideline than the 'dutch bullseye'. And my own (semi) elliptical Sonic 135 (loaded at 1.7) isn't even on the dutch list. Can I jump it next month? (My last few jumps were on 170, since I lent the 135 to someone who wrecked his own canopy...) I have over a 1000 jumps (+/- 2500), I am current on the 170 non-elliptical, I made less than 100 jumps last year. Then again, my landing area is 1200 x 500 meter... Should I come to Teuge so you can give me a canopy control course and sign me off, before I jump my Sonic 135 again?

If the problem is that locally there is no1 in charge, than that problem should be addressed. It is not addressed properly writing rules for everybody everywhere and in this case those rules will be breached massively (If only because people don't understand them and find them way too complicated...)

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[relyon 0]

Quote

Well Paul, if you have figuered out how to successfully do CRW with one participant 'floating like hell' and that participant being the newbie, I sure would like to know how to do that...

Any competent CRW coach should be able to analyze the problem in a couple jumps and recommend hardware and/or wetware changes to correct it. Links and sashays come to mind.

Bob

[dragon2 0]

Quote

Any competent CRW coach should be able to analyze the problem in a couple jumps and recommend hardware and/or wetware changes to correct it. Links and sashays come to mind.

??

What is 'wetware'? And sashays I get, but what do you mean by links?

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[relyon 0]

Quote

What is 'wetware'? And sashays I get, but what do you mean by links?

Oops - introduced a random term - my bad. Wetware refers the jumpers brain.

Adding a Rapide link to the front or rear risers is a common way of changing the trim slightly to compensate for minor float differences. Adding a link to the front decreases the trim (increasing float and decreasing drive slightly); adding a link to the rear increases the trim (decreasing float and increasing drive slighty). Adding links is not a long term fix but it can make things a bit easier on any given day, other things being equal.

New Lightnings generally float a little until the knots are set. Adding links to the rear risers is a common way of adjusting until they've got 20-30 jumps. I keep a pair of #5s and #6s with me for just this purpose.

Bob (edited for grammar and to add "slightly")

[Liemberg 0]

Please don't get distracted by the example. I picked it for rhetoric reasons. Could have picked just as easily someone who is a very accomplished canopy pilot and who can get an excellent deal on second hand gear. Just one step to far for the new dutch rules (downsizing in on step more than the 'bullseye' allows, a few jumps missing for a 'legal' downsize, canopy big enough but placed in another category, etcetera.) I can live with the guidelines but the morons decided to make it a RULE.
My objection is against that, not against the 'bullseye' as a guideline which I can ignore if I see fit and apply ('hide behind') when my 'DZO-gut-feeling' points in another direction.

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[USPA 0]

Sigh... I see a "Liemberg" discussion comming...

Remember the old english wishdom? What is, isn't always what ought to be. It works the other way around too. (that goes for alot of suggestions/insights discussed here, if people were responsible, we wouldn't have the problem in the first place)

You're missing the point. 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" (in the case the person=the problem) (In your words from an old rec.skydiving discussion: It doesn't have the "crater looking for an impact side" sticker on it).

I personally find the Dutch system more flexible and gives a more guided downsizing then the swedish system, but then thats only my opinion (and to quote you again "It's mine alone, unless you share it, then it's yours also" )

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?

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...