Would you support a wingloading BSR?

[crazydiver 0]

Quote

Just to get a general idea.

The question involves a wingloading BSR that would restrict canopy loadings to under a certain limit until you pass a test that is part of the licensing structure. In other words to get a D license you'd have to demonstrate X Y and Z canopy skills - and then once you had the license you could jump canopies with loadings higher than (for example) 1.8 to 1. Canopy skills are already in the licensing structure (specifically accuracy) - this would add additional skills, such as those that have already been added to the B license.

Here's the original letter that outlined the suggestion:
=================================
Over the past few years, we have watched as more and more skydivers injure and kill themselves under high performance canopies. 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. We, the undersigned, call on USPA to increase their role in canopy training to help prevent these sorts of fatalities in the future.

It is our position that only education can prevent accidents like these. Modern, heavily loaded high performance canopies can be flown safely only after sufficient education and/or experience has been obtained by the jumper. We ask USPA to do the following:

-Develop canopy skills requirements for the “B”, “C”, and “D” licenses that build upon the initial "A" license canopy skills. They should include canopy control classroom training, practical exercises, and a written and practical test. Once these are in place, add canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the “A” through “D” license, with a grandfather clause so this does not affect people currently jumping high wing loadings. As with other skills, restricted licenses would be available for jumpers who choose not to demonstrate HP canopy skills.

-To prevent exceptional jumpers from being held back unnecessarily, allow any instructor, I/E or S+TA to waiver these requirements based on a demonstration of canopy skills.

-Develop a Canopy Instructor (CI) rating which focuses on skills required to safely land heavily loaded high performance canopies. Currently, many jumpers receive no practical HP canopy training at all; it is possible to progress through the ISP jumping only a 288 square foot canopy. With the rapid development of very high performance canopies, canopy skills are as critical for skydiver survival (if not more critical) than freefall skills. The intent of the CI would be to teach the canopy skills required for the new licenses, and to waiver those who demonstrate the skill required to progress to small canopies more quickly than their jump numbers would ordinarily allow.

We recognize that any additional restrictions placed on skydivers should be considered very carefully; skydiving has never been a sport of heavy regulation, and regulations alone will not keep anyone safe. However, new regulations are falling into place already. Individual DZ's are implementing canopy loading restrictions with no education, no commonality and no way to "waiver out" of the requirements. We feel that USPA could implement a canopy training program that will educate more jumpers, be less restrictive and keep even pilots of very high performance canopies alive and jumping.
============================

Unequivocably, yes! As long as there is an option to waiver a jumper if the DZ management, coaches, S&TA deem it appropriate.

I'm convinced that I would not have compression fractures in my spine if wing loading limits were in place because I was jumping a canopy way to small/radical for me when I had about 350 jumps, right in the danger zone. Would I have still turned too low? maybe. But it would have hurt a lot less. I was stupid. Rules can't fix stupid, but they can certainly help.

Cheers,
Travis

[davelepka 4]

Quote

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

I'm not sure what you're sorry about, but it's a fact that the information does not exist in the detailed, recorded form required for the application people are asking about here.

The question was asked in an attempt to focus the efforts of a WL BSR or canopy control training. In order to do that, you do need detailed info as to the jumper, equipment, enviromental factors, and some sort of root cause. Provided that, you can analyze the data and use to help form a program to solve whatever problems lead to the incidents.

I understand that people and DZs will remember bad accidents, but in the detail that would be needed to really catagorize them and study the details for the purpose of statistical analysis.

I do agree that there should be some sort of required reporting of any time a jumper is taken to the hospital.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

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.

"Might be" and "probably" are hardly the evidence needed to impose rules on the community.

Come up with some real evidence and you might get less push-back.

...

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

[davelepka 4]

Quote

"Might be" and "probably" are hardly the evidence needed to impose rules on the community.

Come up with some real evidence and you might get less push-back

'Might be' and 'probably' were in reference to non-fatal incidents, a subject for which 'real evidence' does not exist and one that is not being referenced in thinking about the BSR.

Again, moving forward on the assumption that we can all agree the situation with open canopy incidents is significant and needs addressing, and that doing nothing is no longer acceptable. With that in mind I challenge anyone to present one of two things -

1) An alternate idea to address the problem

-or-

2) Any reason not to move forward with the idea of a WL BSR combined with required canopy control courses, even if it's just a stop-gap measure until someone can come with a valid alternative. In other words, what's the harm?

Instead of simply pointing out what's 'wrong' with the idea, how about be productive and offer up a solution that's 'right'?