Recommended Posts
QuoteIt does not seem to be from my POV.
And what POV is that? Some sort of god-like over view of the whole world and every jump that is made, or are you just reading the fatality reports like everyone esle?
What the fatality reports don't tell you is about every non-fatal incident, every near miss with another canopy, and every time an injury is narrowly avoided.
Take Sangi, for example. He's a textbook case of being in over his head, and it resulted in an incident including severe injuries. At one point it wasn't a guarantee that he was going to come out of that coma, and if he did, it wasn't clear that he would ever walk again. Despite the significance of the incident, it will never appear on a fatality report, or really any report, so 'officially' it never happened.
Of course, we know that it happened, and that others like it have also happened, and that less severe incidents have happened, and that near misses have happened, and that many of them involved newer jumpers on canopies and at WL they should not be on.
I'm not surpirsed you're opposed to the idea of some oversight in the area of canopy selection. Fitting right into the historical pattern, I maintain that you are a new jumper who has done extensive reading and garnered the bulk of your info from DZ.com, and not 'DZ real life'. As such, you stand to be effected by any rules limiting canpopy selection, and of course are opposed.
It's very hard to argue that the idea of limiting WL and canopy type for newer jumpers would not reduce incidents of all kinds under open canopies. It's also vey hard to argue that at the vey least such limitations would 'do no harm', despite that, you're still opposed but surprisingly you have not addressed those two points.
So do you honestly believe that restricting WL will not reduce open canopy incidents/injuries? When was the last time jumping a slower canopy was the casue of injury? Beyond that, even if you doubt the ability of a WL limit to help, what harm could it possibly do? Even if the chance is only slight that it will help anyone, why not put it into use for the benefit that it might provide?
Ron 7
QuotePer what you you posted they were going down. I was only looking at the claim presented.
No, that might be what you WANTED to read. But I said that accidents were higher in the last few years.
I don't expect you to admit you were wrong however.
QuoteSeveral problems with that. First is I already brought up collisions so bringing up my own argument doesn't help you. Second is you failed to cite your sources. Last and more importantly out of those collisions how many were a result of downsizing too quickly?
You claimed as long as other people don't get hurt... Just because you brought it up does not mean I can't use it.
Cite my sources??? Ok dz.com fatality database. And knowing many of the people that died.
QuoteIf your level of intellectual discourse is posting something then complaining about it you can have it.
Ah yes... You just continue.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
QuoteQuoteIt does not seem to be from my POV.
And what POV is that? Some sort of god-like over view of the whole world and every jump that is made, or are you just reading the fatality reports like everyone esle?
It is not necessary to post in such an aggressive, snidey skygod way, but to answer your question; by "from my POV" I meant "in my opinion" or "from what I have read". I was using the term to acknowledge the fact that this is my opinion of what I have read - not some kind of fact.
What the fatality reports don't tell you is about every non-fatal incident, every near miss with another canopy, and every time an injury is narrowly avoided.QuoteTake Sangi, for example. He's a textbook case of being in over his head, and it resulted in an incident including severe injuries. At one point it wasn't a guarantee that he was going to come out of that coma, and if he did, it wasn't clear that he would ever walk again. Despite the significance of the incident, it will never appear on a fatality report, or really any report, so 'officially' it never happened.
Sangi is an example of something, but it is not a canopy collision, so it is not very relevant to the point being made.QuoteOf course, we know that it happened, and that others like it have also happened, and that less severe incidents have happened, and that near misses have happened, and that many of them involved newer jumpers on canopies and at WL they should not be on.
This may or may not be true. If they are not reported it's hard to tell. What has been reported recently are cases involving highly experienced pilots under small canopies and collisions involving students on perfectly reasonable wing loadings.QuoteIt's very hard to argue that the idea of limiting WL and canopy type for newer jumpers would not reduce incidents of all kinds under open canopies. It's also vey hard to argue that at the vey least such limitations would 'do no harm', despite that, you're still opposed but surprisingly you have not addressed those two points.
I am not opposed to limits. What I said was why not leave it up to the DZOs? You did not address why you think that is a bad idea.
***So do you honestly believe that restricting WL will not reduce open canopy incidents/injuries? When was the last time jumping a slower canopy was the casue of injury? Beyond that, even if you doubt the ability of a WL limit to help, what harm could it possibly do? Even if the chance is only slight that it will help anyone, why not put it into use for the benefit that it might provide?
If that's your opinion, then why not limit WL for everyone and outlaw any canopies of 150 sq ft or less? I imagine you would be against that because now it affects YOU.
BrokenR1 0
QuoteNo, that might be what you WANTED to read. But I said that accidents were higher in the last few years.
Let me help you out.
QuoteIf you are jumping out of your own aircraft onto your own property by yourself.... You are free to do pretty much whatever you want.
But when you are jumping with others.... It becomes a group problem.
When you are jumping out of someone else's aircraft onto someone else's property... It becomes their problem. They are free to allow it if they want.
In 2011, in the US alone, four deaths were due to a collision. In 2010 in the US: Six.
So it is a group problem unless you are by yourself on your own property out of your own aircraft.
QuoteI don't expect you to admit you were wrong however.
Show me where I am.
QuoteYou claimed as long as other people don't get hurt... Just because you brought it up does not mean I can't use it.
Of course you can use it. Since you have no original thought you may as well use what you got.
If you feel that strongly about it get a BSR created before trying to legislate it. I give much more weight to what davelepka saying then yourself. At least he brought up the non-fatalities being higher. I had been thinking about that and I'd be interested in numbers of canopy collisions involving downsizing faster then recommendations. But guess what? It doesn't matter. I'm not in a position to make or challenge any laws and am not in a position for my opinion to affect the community.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rap is to music what etch-a-sketch is to art.
Sangi is an example of something, but it is not a canopy collision, so it is not very relevant to the point being made.
Quote
Pretty good example of a high-speed canopy collision with the planet...it's a prime example of downsizing faster than his ability to safely do so. It's that what's being discussed?
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
JackC1 0
QuoteIt's very hard to argue that the idea of limiting WL and canopy type for newer jumpers would not reduce incidents of all kinds under open canopies. It's also vey hard to argue that at the vey least such limitations would 'do no harm', despite that, you're still opposed but surprisingly you have not addressed those two points.
I'm not convinced that restricting wing loading on its own will solve this kind of problem. Yes, a high wing loading makes for faster crashes but if Sangi has lowered his wing loading by 0.2 or whatever, would he still have hooked in?
I reckon he would have and that's because the root cause of his accident wasn't too high a wing loading but rather too much of a rotation done at far too low an altitude. The thing is Sangi deliberately set up his pattern that way. He got away with it a fair few times (and many people fall into the same trap) until one day he didn't.
Restricting wing loadings may reduce the severity of the injuries or it may not but I'm not convinced it tackles the root cause of the problem, which was essentially just plain old crap flying.
Maybe it would be better to try and restrict the severity of the stupid shit people can do instead of just trying to make stupid shit slightly less deadly.
Just a thought.
wmw999 2,166
Would that mean not allowing swooping, not allowing jumpers to jump with others in the air? Or would it mean having eyes on every jumper so that rules violations could be swiftly enforced?QuoteMaybe it would be better to try and restrict the severity of the stupid shit people can do instead of just trying to make stupid shit slightly less deadly.
Prevention is generally better than post-offense enforcement. Particularly with there being more jumpers now, keeping an eye on each and everyone would be far more difficult than back in the days of Cessna dropzones. And every time you're not caught, you figure you beat the system and got away with it (how many of us speed on the freeways?).
Reducing the severity of consequences very probably is a better approach. People are going to make mistakes -- you can't legislate against that. But maybe until someone has X number of hours under canopy (if you do a lot of high hop and pops that number goes up fast), or X number of landings, they have to pass additional qualifications over just being present and accounted for.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Ron 7
I have already shown you to be wrong. You took things and read only what you WANTED to read.
Then you started the personal BS... If that is the best you can do, and I suspect it is... Then I am done wasting my time with you.
Then you started the personal BS... If that is the best you can do, and I suspect it is... Then I am done wasting my time with you.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
JackC1 0
QuoteWould that mean not allowing swooping, not allowing jumpers to jump with others in the air? Or would it mean having eyes on every jumper so that rules violations could be swiftly enforced?QuoteMaybe it would be better to try and restrict the severity of the stupid shit people can do instead of just trying to make stupid shit slightly less deadly.
Prevention is generally better than post-offense enforcement. Particularly with there being more jumpers now, keeping an eye on each and everyone would be far more difficult than back in the days of Cessna dropzones. And every time you're not caught, you figure you beat the system and got away with it (how many of us speed on the freeways?).
Reducing the severity of consequences very probably is a better approach. People are going to make mistakes -- you can't legislate against that. But maybe until someone has X number of hours under canopy (if you do a lot of high hop and pops that number goes up fast), or X number of landings, they have to pass additional qualifications over just being present and accounted for.
Wendy P.
It wouldn't necessarily mean an end to swooping but in the same way that people are discussing limiting wing loading based on jump number or whatever, you could also limit the maximum rotation you're allowed to do based on jump number or whatever. Say straight in approaches only below X number of jumps, no more than 90's under Y number of jumps etc.
With regard to enforcement, wing loading restrictions also require policing. How could you stop someone going on a crash diet to downsize or pencil whipping their log book? Are you going to weigh them before they get on the plane or insist on seeing receipts for all their logged jumps?
There are basically two problems here.
1) people who don't generally do crazy stuff but occasionally make mistakes due to inexperience, wing loading restrictions might work here.
2) People who are in a hurry to do big rotations and become swoopers for whatever reason. I'm not sure wing loading restrictions will change their motivation here, unless you make the canopy so huge it's physically impossible to pull a front riser down for more than a few degrees of rotation.
Maybe we need both forms of regulation?
BrokenR1 0
QuoteI have already shown you to be wrong. You took things and read only what you WANTED to read.
Then you started the personal BS... If that is the best you can do, and I suspect it is... Then I am done wasting my time with you.
You're the one who wanted me to re-read your post for information that wasn't there. I obliged. It's still there if you would like to see it again.
What personal BS and what "best I can do"? By your posts you haven't taken much time so I don't feel too bad.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rap is to music what etch-a-sketch is to art.
nigel99 151
QuoteQuoteIt's very hard to argue that the idea of limiting WL and canopy type for newer jumpers would not reduce incidents of all kinds under open canopies. It's also vey hard to argue that at the vey least such limitations would 'do no harm', despite that, you're still opposed but surprisingly you have not addressed those two points.
I'm not convinced that restricting wing loading on its own will solve this kind of problem. Yes, a high wing loading makes for faster crashes but if Sangi has lowered his wing loading by 0.2 or whatever, would he still have hooked in?
I reckon he would have and that's because the root cause of his accident wasn't too high a wing loading but rather too much of a rotation done at far too low an altitude. The thing is Sangi deliberately set up his pattern that way. He got away with it a fair few times (and many people fall into the same trap) until one day he didn't.
Restricting wing loadings may reduce the severity of the injuries or it may not but I'm not convinced it tackles the root cause of the problem, which was essentially just plain old crap flying.
Maybe it would be better to try and restrict the severity of the stupid shit people can do instead of just trying to make stupid shit slightly less deadly.
Just a thought.
I think you are correct. There is a saying that seems popular in the US "you can't fix stupid". By restricting wingloading you hopefully allow people to bust a bone or bruise their ego, on the path of learning. It should reduce fatalities.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.
QuoteI am not opposed to limits. What I said was why not leave it up to the DZOs? You did not address why you think that is a bad idea.
I think it's a bad idea because it is. I know it is because that's the current state of affairs. and we continue to see open canopy incidents as the number one documented killer of skydivers, with countless other non-fatal incidents which are not documented.
Is there another system in place (in the US) that I am not aware of? Last time I checked, unless the USPA has a BSR in place to cover a situation, what is or is not allowed to happen on a DZ is left up to the DZO. Canopy selection is not covered by the USPA, and as such, the DZO is the one who has the final say. Do you think it's working?
QuoteSangi is an example of something, but it is not a canopy collision, so it is not very relevant to the point being made
No, the discussion is about reducing all open canopy related incidents, not just collisions. Just as much as I don't want to see canopy collisions, I also don't want to read about another jumper in a coma who may or may not wake up, and if they do, may or may not walk again.
Half of Sangi's problem was his equipment selection, and half was his attitude. Introducing WL limitations and required canopy control training does three things, with the first two being obvious.
-It limits the WL of a jumper such that it's always conservative relative to their jump numbers. As their experience grows, their tendency to make 'rookie' mistakes will be reduced, and then they can advance to a faster canopy.
-It requires additional training, and forces people to apply themselves in some way toward being a better, safer, more informed pilot.
The third, less obvious, benefit is that it gives new jumpers the impresion that canopy selection and canopy control training is important. We require jumpers to practice EPs when they are students, and go through live water training to get a license because these things are important and worthwhile. By making canopy selection and training an official 'requirement', it lends credibility to the idea that this is an area to take seriously, and not the place to push the limits.
QuoteIf that's your opinion, then why not limit WL for everyone and outlaw any canopies of 150 sq ft or less? I imagine you would be against that because now it affects YOU
How it effects me aside, that's an extreme measure and along the same lines of 'why not outlaw jumping, that would stop the injuries'. There are many jumpers who are qualified and trained to jump canopies smaller than 150 sq ft, that's why we don't need to limit every jumper to bigger canopies forever. That's what you're suggesting, that not one jumper is ever allowed to jump anything smaller than a 150 for the rest of time.
Compare that to my idea, which is that for the first 3 or 4 years and 400-ish jumps in the sport, that jumpers have a restriction on the size and type of canopy they can jump, with those restricitons becoming less and less as they progress through that time. In the end, they are then 'free' to jump whatever they please.
Your suggestion is absurd and all-encompassing. My suggestion is reasonable, currently in use in at least a dozen other countries, and is a temporary situation that only applies to newer and low time jumpers. Do you really need to ask why your idea is different than mine?
It does not seem to be from my POV.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites