0
billvon

Would you support a wingloading BSR?

Recommended Posts

Thank you!

However, to be fair, I don't think that those fake "rules" are simply the product of small dropzones. I have never been told any of those things (or any other bizarre thing of that nature) by anyone at the three small dzs I regularly jump at. Maybe I am just incredibly lucky to get good advice on a regular basis, but I doubt that most small dzs are that closed off from progress and lessons learned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many are not going to be happy with me for this post. I'd be in favor of a BSR on wing loading. I'd also be in favor of it being very strict and conservative. Sorry to all you who don't agree, but I'm sick of all the funerals and hospital visits.

I'd still be in favor of this BSR even if it meant I need to buy a larger canopy. Please do not "grandfather" anything in. Too small is to small even if you already own a canopy. If you want to fly a hotrod... put in the time and training (read as...jumps & canopy courses)!

And, please do NOT make it a recommedation. We've all seen how that works. i.e. cameras? B|

Birdshit & Fools Productions

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?


Quote



~Just to add Dave, it might just also raise awareness enough that some kind of mental adjustment will me made regarding the culture of safety in that area of the sport.

There once was a time that one HAD to have several hundred jumps just to TRY one of those scary squares!

And that's back when it took a few years to get 200 jumps, and the scary squares were quite tame compared to what we put students out on at many places these days.

Having that 'rule' shit-hammered it into people that those old square canopies weren't toys, ~maybe we need that kind of 'community' wake up again?


I agree with you...what could it hurt?











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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

~Just to add Dave, it might just also raise awareness enough that some kind of mental adjustment will me made regarding the culture of safety in that area of the sport.



That's aways been one of the goals I had in mind when I support these type of programs. How can the USPA expect people to take this serisouly when they themsevles don't?

Important things have 'teeth' behind them, a reason for people to sit up and pay attention. Roads have speed limits, and there are real consequences for breaking them. What do you think the average driver would do if the speed 'limit' was changed to a speed 'reccomendation', and cops were no longer allowed to hand out tickets? What do you think the average, young, type A personality, skydiver would do when driving on those roads?

Giving the situation 'teeth' makes it important to everyone. Most people will just fall in line and accept the 'new way'. Some jumpers will balk, but in time they'll either gain enough experience to just do what they want anyway, or quit the sport. That 'problem' solves itself (eventaully). For all the jumpers who accept the new situation, and every new jumper who takes up the sport after the new regs are in place, it becomes an effective tool for educating jumpers, keep them on safer WL and canopy types, and building an awareness of why canopy control is an important skill to have (and maintain).

Quote

I agree with you...what could it hurt?



I don't know, but I would love to hear if anyone does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Dave, I can't argue with anything you have said. There is a huge problem with open canopy fatalities in this sport. I do not know what the solution is- perhaps a w/l BSR would be it - I just don't know.
People will ALWAYS make poor choices in this sport, education or not - be it Mr. Bills, low pulls, jumping camera before they are ready, etc.
I just hate to see the freedom of the sport going away. Maybe that is a necessary sacrifice for the overall well being of the sport - but I sincerely hope a better solution or compromise can be found. "
As far as w/l goes - personally I would rather see a X-brace BSR rather than w/l one. Perhaps make that the first step and see how that goes?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I just hate to see the freedom of the sport going away



How is it going away? Nobody is telling you not to jump, or when to jump. You still have access to the largest number of DZs in the world where you can jump for the least amount of money in the world.

What it would say is that if you want to jump, and be a part of the USPA 'community', that you have to adhere to some standards until you have earned the right to make your own choices. If you want all the benefits of jumping in the US, and at a USPA DZ, then you also need to abide by the rules set forth. There is an area of the sport that we have identifed as being problematic, and therefore it needs to be addressed.

Quote

personally I would rather see a X-brace BSR rather than w/l one



How many people fly x-braced canopies? 10% of the jumpers? Of that, how many of them would be 'uderqualifed' in the eyes of a BSR? 10% of that? An x-brace BSR would effect, at best, 1% of jumpers.

What I'm interested in is a plan that will effect the largest number of jumpers. We're dealing with the biggest problem in the sport, so we need to address it as such.

I'm a reasonable guy. I know that sooner or later, every jumper earns the right to call their own shots when it comes to canopy selection. It's not magic, or calculus, it's flying a parachute and everyone figures it out eventaully. So we have this problem, and it seems to span jumpers of all abilities at all WL. With that in mind, if we make a plan that reaches virtually all jumpers, we're on the right track.

Eventaully, you have to cut a jumper loose to do whatever they want, let's day that's at 700 or 800 jumps. You tell me how you would feel about a guy with 750 jumps, who has been through 4 canopy control courses, and followed a reasonable canopy progression along the way? Where would you rate his chances for success after being 'cut loose'?

I'm guessing pretty high, and that's why this type of plan will work (and does work outside of the US). It takes new jumpers and keeps a lid on them while they learn the 'tricks of the trade', through both education and building experience. It also sets them up for the best chances for success when they're on their own.

Quote

I do not know what the solution is- perhaps a w/l BSR would be it - I just don't know.



Barring any other ideas, why not give it a shot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hate to see the freedom of the sport going away.


Quote



I really don't know what that means?

I'm truly not being condescending to you so please don't take it that way...

You list in your bio 4 years in the sport, exactly what 'freedoms' are you afraid of losing?

Since this sport became a primarily profit driven 'business' a few decades ago, the 'freedoms' have long since vanished never to return. :ph34r:;)

The 'freedom' to jump drunk and high, to pull low, to pencil a reserve when broke, to fly a jump plane without a license...just a few of the 'freedoms' that went by the way side.

There WERE grumblings about the changing sport as it was happening...but come on, can anyone argue those changes were a bad thing? Lives were at stake!

At many drop-zones you have no freedom to jump without being a USPA member, to jump without outlined training, to participate in technical jumps without a license, to jump without head gear...some places you MUST have an AAD.

This is just another in a long line of 'regulations' that will be implemented eventually, one way or another...either by US or the Feds.

People are being killed and maimed on a regular basis, something isn't working...we really need to get this addressed before we really DO begin to lose some freedoms that we shouldn't, ...THAT WE CAN'T AFFORD TO!

We as a group are currently allowed to police ourselves, we better get to it because THAT is the major freedom that if lost ~will horribly change the sport FOREVER.











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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why not ban HP canopies and restrict WL to a maximum of 1 to 1 for everybody? I think that would really make skydiving safer.




If you think you can do that, it sounds like a good project to occupy your time...:D

If you think the current carnage will continue forever into the future without some kind of intervention, your understanding of the way things work is unrealistically naive.

Things WILL change, currently we skydivers have input and a stake in the way and the extent of that change...that WILL NOT be the case forever.

You DO remember the letter from the FAA administrator regarding this subject right?

That was the shot across the bow, let's not have to take one amidships before we change course.

THAT would be about as dumb as ...well, your sarcastic comment regarding the banning of all HP canopies. :P










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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why not ban HP canopies and restrict WL to a maximum of 1 to 1 for everybody? I think that would really make skydiving safer.



Because that would be unreasonable. It is possible to jump HP canopies at high WL without incident. People do it everyday, and in truth, some of the most active jumpers use that type of equipment.

The idea of a WL chart, at least the ones that have been presented, are not unreasonable. Do you really think that a max WL of 1 to 1 is that far off base for a guy with under 100 jumps? Is 1.1 once you get beyond 100 jumps much different than you would adise a young jumper?

Let's say a guy has 101 jumps, and weighs in at 170lbs. What would you reccomend for this jumper, given 'average' canopy control skills? A 170 sq ft canopy would put him at just over 1.1 and have him pretty darn close to the numbers on the chart. What's the alternative? A 150? Unless you would reccomend a 150 for this jumper, then the chart represents a reasonable number that's not all that tough to stick to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You DO remember the letter from the FAA administrator regarding this subject right?

That was the shot across the bow, let's not have to take one amidships before we change course.

THAT would be about as dumb as ...well, your sarcastic comment regarding the banning of all HP canopies.



For those that have a short memory.

Sparky

http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/IMG_0001.jpg
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

About more people being killed by other people running into them. That's where the focus should be.



It is a well known psychological fact that most drivers think they are above average in skill, quickness of response etcetera. It is well known statistical fact that that is impossible. Is this different for skydivers? I think not...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A cultural problem also exists and is going to need to change if any progress is to be made on open canopy injuries and fatalities.

Many of today's experienced jumpers, instructors, coaches and ST&As have grown up in the "it's ok to rapidly transition to a HP canopy" era. They figured everyone else is doing it and they got away with it so it's ok for others to do so also. Changing this mind set is going to be a very difficult thing to do.

If a wingloading BSR slows down and helps jumpers transition to HP canopies slowly and safely, prevents a handful of injuries and just one fatality, then it's worth putting in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>However, to be fair, I don't think that those fake "rules" are simply the product of
>small dropzones.

They're not! They are the product of close knit communities who start thinking "we've always done it this way, it's always worked and there's no reason to change it." This often happens at small DZ's but it is by no means restricted to them; larger DZ's just have more transient populations so you get more turnover.

Heck, until 5 years ago Perris (which is not a small DZ by any means) was teaching the 45 degree rule. Someone who started there might think there was no other way to do it. Going to another DZ could really open their eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



BFD. Lots of people are prepared PUBLICLY to point out problems in your proposal, not hide behind PMs.

The arguments against have been made over and over - I do not need to repeat them.

Why do you feel the need to insult those who don't agree with all the details of your proposal?
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why do you feel the need to insult those who don't agree with all the details of your proposal?



I challenge you to point out one case where I insulted someone because they didn't agree with my views on this. I may have expressed my views, and specifically addressed their concerns, but insults were never a part of it.

As for you, it wasn't your point of view I was disapproving of, it was your delivery. There was no substance to your post, and in truth, it didn't even make that much sense.

The poster chimed in a gave his supprt to the idea of a WL BSR, and you replied 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'. What is he, or anyone, supposed to take away from that? Good intentions lead to hell? Should the poster abandon his good intentions all together, or just be weary of where they are leading him?

More to the point, how does that relate to what he said (specifically) and the subject at hand? My assertion is that your post was a cheap shot, and coming from someone of your caliber, was lazy and unproductive. Explain to me the relevance of your post with regards to the post you replied to, and this thread in general, and prove me wrong.

Again, I recieved multiple PMs in support of calling you out on that post. It was not your finest moment, and I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I posted this in a parallel forum...
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view&post=4287421
Sorry about the cross posting, but here it is for discussion.

Wing Loading BSR... For a Pro rating, I believe you need to be rated on the canopy you're going to use on demo's? I'd say this could work for a wing loading rating. You do a course, put in the time, and become "Rated" on the wings allowed for that rating. If you want a higher rating, you get certified for that wing.

What if we separated the W/L rating from the actual license? Something like below...

Below is a rough sketch of what I’m talking about and I’ve given minimal thought to the exact numbers/wing loadings/etc. for the ratings. I post this just for discussion.

__________________________________________
No canopy rating.. Non elliptical up to .8 w/l

class 1. B license required (card complete)
non elliptical up to 1.2w/l

class 2. C license required
non elliptical up to 1.5 w/l
semi-elliptical up to 1.2 w/l
No ellipticals! No X-braced

class 3. 500 jumps in class 2
non elliptical up to 1.7 w/l
semi-elliptical up to 1.5 w/l
elliptical up to 1.2 w/l
no X-braced

class 4. 500 jumps in class 3
unlimited non elliptical
semi-elliptical up to 1.9 w/l
elliptical up to 1.6 w/l
X-braced up to 1.4

class 5. 500 jumps in class 4
Open/swooper class
_______________________________________

I could now hold a C-3 license. I'd have the privileges of The C License on a canopy up to the class 3 restrictions.

Or, I could have a D-2 license with the privileges of the D license and fly a canopy up to the class 2 restrictions.

No Exceptions needed or allowed!!
Food For Thought …flame on! ... or better yet, revise my rambling to make it work!
Birdshit & Fools Productions

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I voted for and support a BSR however you can't educate through regulations. If people want to get around another rule they will. Bottom line is you cannot stop natural selection by enforcing non-enforcable rules, nor would I want too.

Does anyone have the data regarding canopy incidents vs. license holders for the last 5 years? I would suspect that our primary offenders are D-license holders > 500 + jumps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Does anyone have the data regarding canopy incidents vs. license holders for the last 5 years? I would suspect that our primary offenders are D-license holders > 500 + jumps



No. There is no data regarding incidents in general, data is only collected for fatal incidents. Anything non-fatal, from an ankle sprain up to paralysis is nto recorded and does not appear in any statistical analysis.

On the subject of D-licesne holders being more prevalent on the fatality lists, it might be the case. Considering that they typically jump the highest loaded canopies, and are probably the most active group of jumpers in terms of annual jumps, it's not surprising. Faster canopies increases your risk of an incident ending in a fatality, and higher frequency of jumps equals a higher chance for an incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personal opinion.

I think that if you take away peoples ability to kill or hurt themselves with smaller parachutes they will just figure out how to do it with big ones. There will always be people that get bored with the skydive and need to find a rush some new way.

1980 -89 34.1 Avg fatalities
90-99 32.3
00-09 25.8
2006-2010 21.2

How where they killing them selves in the 80's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How where they killing them selves in the 80's?



Low pulls. Now there's a min pull altitude BSR, and reliable AADs available, and that slice of the pie chart has become insignificant.

If you think jumpers will find a new way to kill themsleves, so be it. Let's get open canopy incidents reduced to an insignificant slice of the pie chart, and see what new way we devise to kill ourselves, then we can work on that.

Let's face it, it took a massive shift in canopy design, technology and flight styles to make open canopy incidents the #1 killer of skydivers. If you think there's another massive shift in the sport out there to replace it, you might be right. It might also be that there isn't such a shift in the works, and the overall fatalites might see a lasting downward trend.

Skydiving is a fairly new sport. In the eary days we lacked developed training and specailized gear. Sport skydiving specific gear came first, and the sport got safer. Then the focus shifted to better training, and again, the sport got safer. Next up was the implementaion of technology to the gear in the form of AADs, and more modern materials and design, and again, the sport got safer.

We're really in the first great gear 'revolution' since the training has become structured anf focused. Back in the first gear revolution, skydiving was still an 'outlaw' sport, and not the business that it is today. All we need to do is learn to take the structure and professionalism that the sport has developed and apply it to the gear we have available. It's clear that the canopies and techniques for flying them are VASTLY different that they used to be, yet the training and regualtion of them have not changed all that much, and that needs to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My personal goal is to become an old skydiver.

I'm not planning on jumping a camera until 200 jumps and coaching from a camera jumper. I don't jump in winds above 20. And when I noticed one of my friends who still can’t stand up his landings thinking about jumping in 26mph winds I told him he would be a fucking idiot if he went on the load. It worked.

I think another possible option might be to channel the general nature of skydivers. Could there be a way to give achievements to completing canopy control cards or skills? Why not make a model based on video games to give achievements for the most mundane things that people wouldn’t have even thought about doing before.

As a new skydiver I want to get my 4-stack not because I want to do CRW (yet) but because its there. If there were awards for more things I know I would try and get them. I’m not saying USPA needs to send things out but they could start an online method of tracking them. If there were ways to track how many times I hit the disk in the peas verses my friends, I know I would start taking accuracy more seriously.

Instead of forcing people to be safe why not think about more proactive ways of improving skills.

As a side note; I hate seatbelt laws although I wouldn’t drive without one.


Just a thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fully support a wingloading BSR. I fear that to some extent the cat has already been let out of the bag and whatever is implemented is still too permissive.
I learn't on rounds and a Cruiselite used to be considered an intermediate to advanced canopy. People acknowledged the fact that a radical turn on a 220 square foot parachute could seriously hurt you. We have evolved to the point where first time students are put out on semi-ellipticals that are 210 or smaller (of course these are smaller jumpers etc).

For the record, I believe that to jump anything over a 1.4 wingloading people should require specific training and meet specified performance criteria. It wouldn't matter if you were an A or D license holder. Leave it to the experts to decide what is needed, but it should not be based solely on jump numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No. There is no data regarding incidents in general, data is only collected for fatal incidents. Anything non-fatal, from an ankle sprain up to paralysis is nto recorded and does not appear in any statistical analysis



Hi Dave

I'm sorry but until USPA makes a good faith effort by polling their GM DZ's. and the same DZ's are willing to go thru their human memory banks or written records about the maiming injuries that occured at their DZ's I can not acccept the fact that the data doesn't exist for the maiming injuries.

The consequences of maimimg injuries are so horrendous that it's something thats hard to forget. Ignoring them is doing a diservice to all USPA members and their families.

IMO I don't think we need to know specific locations, yr's and peoples names, but at least USPA thru their GMDZ's should make a effort to collect the specific data and publish the results.

If after USPA makes the effort and there is no known maiming injuries. Than it is what it is, just rumors, & urban legends.

I find it hard to belive that Everyone that has a serious injuryas a result of a failure to land a perfectly good canopy will either fully recover or die.

DSE's recovery from his bad landing was remarkableB|, but he's also a remarkable person, maybe more than human. But their are a lot of others that don't have DSE's abilities.

Lets not say no without even trying first. Don't forget USPA is by and for the membership.

I don't have a clue if the ratio of death to maiming is 10 to 1 or 1 1 to zero. If the facts aren't available than how about USPA starst collecting them this spring or summer or next yr and come up with a percentage and plug it into the past yrs fatalities.

While their at it they can also start collecting data on who has/hasn't taken canopy courses and gotten hurt, maimed or worse.

Just the facts folks so people know what their up against.

R.

"Who say skydivers are stupid? We invented a whole new way to kill ourselves" 1985

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