Would you support a wingloading BSR?

[DaVinciflies 0]

Quote

I would like to see crossbraced canopies and wingloadings exceeding 1.5-ish limited to D license qualified or higher jumpers who have completed some form of high performance canopy flight course.

Excellent.

[faulknerwn 36]

One thing that people forget is that this will hopefully make people better canopy pilots. If people are forced to slow down, they will have more time to master all aspects of their canopy flight on one canopy, rather than downsizing for more performance while never taking the time to truly learn all aspects of a canopy. It takes a bunch of jumps to really master a canopy - something that many people in a desperate rush for more performance never learn how to do.

That's how you get people with a thousand jumps on a fast canopy scared to land off, scared to do braked approaches, scared to land any way but into the wind.. Take the time to truly learn.

[billvon 2,396]

>If this BSR was in place 10 years ago, how many of the incidents would
>have been prevented? Less than half, I'd say . . .

That's about right. I got between 40-50% of canopy incidents avoided when I did the analysis eight years ago (depending on assumptions made about the incidents.) Which would have been 8 or 9 fewer fatalities.

>A BSR limiting everybody to a max wing load would be more effective at
>reducing incidents.

Yes, it would.

>Somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4 would probably be pretty effective, and I
>think would have prevented twice as many of the incidents that did
>happen as the proposals I see here.

I'd say you'd have to go with under 1:1 if you want to prevent twice the number of accidents (i.e. prevent nearly every canopy accident out there.)

>Do you agree with my numbers, and would you support such a BSR?

Not really. I don't think you can eliminate all incidents. All you can do is educate people enough so that if they _do_ decide to kill themselves, it's not due to lack of knowledge of the risks they are taking.

[airtwardo 6]

>If this BSR was in place 10 years ago, how many of the incidents would
>have been prevented? Less than half, I'd say . . .

That's about right. I got between 40-50% of canopy incidents avoided when I did the analysis eight years ago (depending on assumptions made about the incidents.) Which would have been 8 or 9 fewer fatalities.

Quote

I'm curious Bill, are you factoring injuries too or just fatalities?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I'm curious Bill, are you factoring injuries too or just fatalities?

That's a great point, and one that people miss when they get all wrapped up in the 'numbers'.

There are no stats for injuries, but I can think of 10x more jumpers I know that have suffered severe injuries (bone breaks or worse) than jumpers I know who died skydiving. Of course, those jumpers and the circumstances of their injuries aren't recorded anywhere, and therefore can't be used for statistical analysis.

At the core, this whole thing is about shifting the window of education upwards to (finally) match the upward trend of canopy performance. When there were no high performance canopies, there was no need for any of this. When the first gen of HP canopies came out, like the 97/107 Stiletto or Sabre, nobody but the little guys or the top jumpers wanted any part of them, so it was still no big deal.

Once those wings were knocked off the top of the list by x-branced canopies, the whole thing changed big time. It turns out that people weren't avoiding the smaller Stilettos and such because they knew better, just because they knew that they shouldn't be on the highest performing canopy on the market. However, once the Stiletto got bumped down to second tier status, people started looking at it differently, even though the wing was the same.

What the new canopies did was change the definition of an 'expert pilot'. Where 500 jumps used to be enough to master everything on the market, now it's up to 1000 jumps. Where it used to be OK for jumpers not to recieve any additional canopy training beyond AFF based on was they were likely to be jumping, it's not like that anymore.

If you want to higher performance canopies available, you need the higher performance standards for both canopy selection and training. I'll offer up that anyone willing to limit themselves to a 150 sq ft non-eliptical canopy could opt out of this whole thing. If that's going to be the peak of your canopy performance envelope, you could probably get away with doing things the old fashioned way.

For the rest of the jumpers, who intend to jump smaller canopies, more aggressive designs, and possibly one day swoop them, you need to hold yourself a higher standard right from the start and get used to it. Small canopied and swooping don't leave a lot of room for bullshit.

[billvon 2,396]

>I'm curious Bill, are you factoring injuries too or just fatalities?

Fatalities. Injury stats are hard to get and are almost always sketchy.

[airtwardo 6]

Exactly the point i was tryin' make Dave, thank you for more eloquently stating it.

Krip and I were just discussing the number of young guys permanently disabled because of bad canopy choices, add to that the numbers of jumpers down from their 'normal' life for a given period of time because of broken bones and those 'numbers' of incidents climb pretty quick.

Make no mistake, unless you're 8 years old living with mom & pops, busting a bone is serious life changer...maybe not a permanent one... but still.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

>I'm curious Bill, are you factoring injuries too or just fatalities?

Fatalities. Injury stats are hard to get and are almost always sketchy.

Maybe we should start an informal stat thing like DSE is doing on the camera thread...I can think of 5 life changers I've personally witnessed in the past 2 years alone...and probably 20 off hand I've heard about in that time.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[robinheid 0]

Quote

In 99% of the cases, this happens to a jumper who does not have the education and experience to fly his canopy safely. In the majority of cases, a larger canopy would have prevented the fatality or mitigated the injury.

These are the premises upon which this thread is based.

One is a provably false statement; the other is an unprovable speculation.

That's why this thread is a GIGOfest.

44

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[daleskydive 0]

At the DZs I jump at you have to tell the DZCI what canopy you have,The number of jumps you have done recently(currency) your licence and total jump numbers. If they dont like what they hear, you dont jump that canopy. SIMPLE

[hillson 0]

In general I think this is a good idea. Some quibbles with the proposal as stated but the "overall point" of the idea is a good one IMHO.

[tkhayes 126]

absolutely not. How about a demonstration of specific skills? Pilots have to demonstrate skills under the auspice of a checkride, then they pass or fail. But no one says you cannot do your private pilot rating in a high performance airplane, as long as the examiner can go along.

We have know for years that wing-loading is simply 'one' of the many factors in canopy choices, or has everyone missed every canopy seminar that has ever been written?

[davelepka 4]

Quote

But no one says you cannot do your private pilot rating in a high performance airplane, as long as the examiner can go along.

Ok, how does the canopy examiner go along when the jumper is trying to get checked out on a high performance canopy (or just HP for that jumper)? How does that jumper recieve hours of dual instruction on said canopy leading up to the 'check ride'?

This is one of those areas where there is a difference between general aviaition training and skydiving training. Canopy piloting is a 100% solo activity, so you have to select your equipment with that in mind. You're not choosing for the best-case sceanrio, you're choosing for the worst-case.

I'm quite sure that anyone tyring to 'test up' into a new canopy is going to pick an ideal day. going to practice the test criteria, and mentally prepare themselves for the test beforehand to ensure peak performance. Picture a competituve sjydiver on their last jump at Nationals with a medal on the line, and now picture that same jumper a sunset 10-way at the end of a long day. Same jumper, but you're likely to get a sharper performance out of them at Nationals then on a 'fun' jump. The canopy thing is the same idea, when the jumper knows they're going to be officially 'tested', they're ready for that. When Murphy steps in and 'tests' them unexpectedly, it's another story.

Again, I would ask the downside of a written WL progression that follows along with jump numbers. None of the charts put forth have been overly restrictive, and they all have allowed for advancement in 100 jump increments, so what's the downside?

Quote

We have know for years that wing-loading is simply 'one' of the many factors in canopy choices, or has everyone missed every canopy seminar that has ever been written?

Every WL BSR proposal that has come up recently has included tie-in with required canopy control courses of increasing difficulty to coincide with the licenses. So each time you get a license, you take a specific canopy control course, and by the time you have a D license, you have taken a comprehensive course of canopy control classes.

Let's say the WL BSR included required canopy control classes, would you support it then?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

In general I think this is a good idea. Some quibbles with the proposal as stated but the "overall point" of the idea is a good one IMHO.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

>I'm curious Bill, are you factoring injuries too or just fatalities?

Fatalities. Injury stats are hard to get and are almost always sketchy.

well, i know of one fatality from this weekend, hasnt showed up yet, and very likely, never will. highly experienced guy too.

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[davelepka 4]

Quote

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions

Is that exclusive? Can good intentions lead elsewhere, or just hell?

Again, an argumentative, unproductive statement from a man of your education and background. It would be one thing if you never played the 'long standing private pilot' and 'college phyisics professor' cards, but you do play the cards sometimes, and that builds in expectations in the eyes of others.

If you want to be respected the educated, experienced aviator, then act like it. Doing 'drive by' posts with one liners and no real sustance is more akin to a drunk college kid taking a break from Twitter.

[tkhayes 126]

I'm fine with all that you say - but the title of the thread is "Would you support a wingloading BSR?"

and that, by itself, absolutely not is still the answer.

If you want to develop a course, then develop a course, but let's not slap wingloading into it as the fix, if it is *NOT* actually the fix.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions

Is that exclusive? Can good intentions lead elsewhere, or just hell?

Again, an argumentative, unproductive statement from a man of your education and background. It would be one thing if you never played the 'long standing private pilot' and 'college phyisics professor' cards, but you do play the cards sometimes, and that builds in expectations in the eyes of others.

If you want to be respected the educated, experienced aviator, then act like it. Doing 'drive by' posts with one liners and no real sustance is more akin to a drunk college kid taking a break from Twitter.

Insults won't get you anywhere. Try to understand that there are many who do not agree with your proposal even if your intentions are honorable. The arguments against do NOT need repeating over and over - YOU just need to pay attention to them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Try to understand that there are many who do not agree with your proposal even if your intentions are honorable. The arguments against do NOT need repeating over and over - YOU just need to pay attention to them.

Well, you didn't make any argument against anyting, and you weren't addressing me. There was a newer member and lower time jumper who put himself out there with his opinion, and you as a more senior member and jumper came back with a useless, smart-ass remark.

In any case, it was inappropriate and not productive at all. When you factor in your qualifications, and the impression it leaves on a newer member, it's that much worse.

You can try to defend your actions any way you please, but the writing is literally on the wall for everyone to see. It was lazy and uncalled for, and you can't hide from that.

If you wanted to disagree with me in that fashion it's one thing, but to address a newer jumpers who was trying to make an honest contribution in that manner is just crude and unneccesary.

FYI, I have recieved more than one PM in support of calling you out on that BS post, so I'm not the only one who feels this way.

[Krip 2]

reply]

Quote

>I'm curious Bill, are you factoring injuries too or just fatalities?

Fatalities. Injury stats are hard to get and are almost always sketchy.

Maybe we should start an informal stat thing like DSE is doing on the camera thread...I can think of 5 life changers I've personally witnessed in the past 2 years alone...and probably 20 off hand I've heard about in that time.

Thats the big elephant in the room that a lot of people can't see or don't want to talk about but they are out there.

1) Sangi
2) Tim Sagehorn
3)
4)
How many more?
10? 20?

I first heard the following statement in 1985 from a old friend when I was considering getting back in the sport.

"Who says skydivers are stupid? We invented a whole new way to kill ourselves"

That was 25 years ago ladies and gents,

Based on current data that doesn't exist or is skethy and ad it to the 25 yr old quote above

"Who says skydivers are stupid? We invented a whole new way to kill and maim ourselves"

I know I'm not going to be around in another 25 yr's
R.

One Jump Wonder

[Willi91 0]

In Denmark we've had regulations for years now.
Some might think, that they aren't strict enough to have an effect, but as I see it, they really have.
Below 200 jumps, you are allowed to jump canopies loaded at 1.0. At 200 jumps you can raise your loading to just under 1.4. 200 jumps also allows you to fly elliptical, but not above 1.0 WL. 400 jumps lets you jump elliptical above 1.0. I don't remember if there is an upper limit for WL here. If you want to jump crossbraced, you need 600 jumps.
Sometimes I see people who wants to jump a canopy that is way to small for them, and this is where the regulations step in.
If not all people have common sense, which they don't, they do stupid things such as flying a canopy they are not capable of flying safely. I see regulations as a good idea, if people aren't able to manage their freedom. I have no complaints about the most of the rules we have in DK. The same goes for jumping with a camera. You need 150 jumps to wear one, AND you need approval from a videoinstructor.

[becka 0]

As has already been pointed here and in Linn's thread on Norway's first draft of a chart, it depends a lot on what the BSR would say. If it is as poorly written as the canopy recommendations appear in the SIM, then absolutely not.

Among other things, smaller jumpers are completely overlooked by the recommendation saying any canopy below 150 square feet is advanced and reserved for D license holders. If you want an example of why some people feel justified in ignoring recommendations, here is one. There is no reason that this can't be tightened up and explain that, yes, in fact there are some people that weigh (a lot) less than 150 pounds and can be on smaller canopies (of appropriate type) sooner WITH appropriate steps taken to get there. Brian Germain's chart and thorough explanation is much more appropriate for most smaller jumpers, although I imagine some truly tiny folks may still be needing another column in the chart.

To be clear, I am NOT talking about radical downsizing or ignoring the fact that canopy performance is not linear. But without a better explanation and a more appropriate recommendation, we are practically begging some people to break the rules in stupid ways because we don't have appropriate guidelines that can be justified with facts.

Additionally, not everyone jumps at a dropzone with formal canopy coaching. However, many of these dropzones are small and close-knit. Because of that, you often get very good advice by people who may not be official canopy coaches, but who have seen you land 100 times in the past year. So it would be important to keep that in mind if there was a skills limitation as well as jump number limitation on wingloading/canopy type.

[crotalus01 0]

"All you can do is educate people enough so that if they _do_ decide to kill themselves, it's not due to lack of knowledge of the risks they are taking."
I agree. However, I sincerely doubt that there are many jumpers that have seriously injured or killed themselves by flying inappropriate canopies that were NOT warned that what they were doing was dangerous - you can say "they don't know what they don't know" all day long, but what they likely DID know was their canopy choice was not recommended for their numbers/experience, or that they were pushing it at least.
Seems like we are trying to find a one size fits all solution for a very fluid problem that defies being pigeonholed....

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[billvon 2,396]

>Among other things, smaller jumpers are completely overlooked by the
>recommendation saying any canopy below 150 square feet is advanced and
>reserved for D license holders.

Agreed. You'd need a chart like the Germain chart that takes total weight into account.

>However, many of these dropzones are small and close-knit. Because of that, you
>often get very good advice by people who may not be official canopy coaches, but
>who have seen you land 100 times in the past year.

Definitely. But on the other hand there is a lot of value in getting small DZ's exposure to other ways of doing things. A lot of "tribal knowledge" (i.e. the 45 degree rule, "pump the brakes to extend your glide," "we can't wear seatbelts because you have to lean forward for takeoff" etc) sounds good in places where, statistically, it has simply never caused a problem - but might not be correct overall.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I sincerely doubt that there are many jumpers that have seriously injured or killed themselves by flying inappropriate canopies that were NOT warned that what they were doing was dangerous - you can say "they don't know what they don't know" all day long, but what they likely DID know was their canopy choice was not recommended for their numbers/experience, or that they were pushing it at least.
Seems like we are trying to find a one size fits all solution for a very fluid problem that defies being pigeonholed....

Again, the only logical conclusion I can reach from reading this is that a WL BSR would help.

The jumpers in your example knew they were pushing the limits, but maybe not the degree they were pushing or the consequences of their actions. So even with 'information', they still made poor choices.

So you need more then information (these people were told they were pushing), you need a WL regulation as well.

People may know they are pushing the limits, but they either believe they are special, or that the limits are improperly placed, so they do it anyway. In the case they think they're special, anytime you give them the choice to push, or not push, they're going to go with 'push' because they feel they can get away with it. In the case they feel the limits are improperly places, they'll simply go outside the limits if they are able. take away the ability to go outside the limits, and you have solved that problem.

Again, this is not a 'magic bullet' that can solve every facet of every problem. A WL BSR combined with required canopy control courses is about the best, most comprehensive plan anyone has put forth. Furthermore, programs of these types have been in place outside of the US for years with good results.

There seem to be no shortage of people ready to point out possible flaws in the system, but very few have any alternate suggestions. Doing nothing is clearly not the solution, and should no longer be considered an option.

How about this - someone point out the harm such a program could if it was implemented until a better idea comes along. Right now there's more or less nothnig in place, how about we test this one out for the time being, all the while continuing to look for the 'magic bullet' that will solve 100% of the problem. What's wrong with that idea?