Fast learners

[crotalus01 0]

Negative publicity doesnt seem to have hurt Lodi's business any....

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

[jdfreefly 1]

The downside is that it puts responsibility on the DZOs to enforce it. The argument from DZOs is that skydivers should be capable of making this decision on their own.

If you make the BSR, and someone lies to circumvent it and then dies, you put the DZO in a bit of a sticky spot where they could be held liable for not doing enough to make sure the person was qualified. In the end, this will make it harder to be a DZO, and as a result, raise the cost of jumps.

That's the argument I would give you if I were a DZO. Also, if I were a DZO, why should I need USPA to tell me what wing loading requirements to make? Why can't I make that decision on my own?

One more argument; every time you create a regulation, you remove a little more personal responsibility from the individual. Over time, this eats away at the feeling that we are responsible for our own safety and results in a mind set that USPA will protect us from ourselves. This in turn leads to carelessness and more accidents, as well as a belief that if you get hurt, someone other than you must be to blame, accountable, liable, financially responsible.

Just some arguments for you, don't assume I believe any of them 100%, or that I think any of them are 100% bullshit.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[craigbey 0]

Standard training, rules and restrictions that are defined by the USPA are merely additional tools to allow DZO's to apply a more consistent approach to the problem. They may also help define 'common sense' in case that isn't already clear.

[craigbey 0]

Unfortunately, these discussions almost always get stuck on the 'freedom to choose vs rules / regulations' issue.

I wish these things didn't have to be made into formal regulations. It would be nice if everyone had the same level of 'common sense' that we deem appropriate. But that isn't reality.

The fundamental issue is a lack of consistent training. We need to do a better job of training everyone how to fly their canopies safely. How this training gets developed, documented, implemented and consistently applied needs to be considered.

And I would be very happy to take part in any form of ongoing training. As a student.

[danielcroft 2]

Thanks for your response.

So you're saying that all BSRs are the responsibility of the DZO to enforce? If part of my 1st jump and A license training is wing loading limits and I buy a canopy outside those limits, at what point does that become the responsibility of the DZO? Where in the BSRs does it say that the DZO is responsible? These aren't rhetorical questions.

On the front of taking away responsibility leading to carelessness, I can see that, I personally think that's the case but it's a trade off isn't it? We already separated landing areas which means that people are way less engaged (IMO) and pay less attention.

I guess I feel that introducing canopy WL limits is a way to tell people that canopy is important. As we introduce more guidelines around canopy (making it part of the licenses, etc.) that could achieve the same results but I personally think that WLL are an example of good regulation and so I don't object to it. People will still have choice, they'll still be able to buy something that suits them but will just be limited on the size (or whatever is decided) rather than (like motorcycles) being able to go buy whatever they want.

I think the example of other countries implementing limitations successfully should show us that we actually don't have much of a leg to stand on. I think if our concerns are around liability, I feel that the lack of pointers on WL could be construed as not giving newer jumpers information that is so clearly important to them and their decision making process. How long before someone sues because their relative wasn't told that their canopy choice wasn't safe?

[DaVinciflies 0]

Quote

Standard training, rules and restrictions that are defined by the USPA are merely additional tools to allow DZO's to apply a more consistent approach to the problem. They may also help define 'common sense' in case that isn't already clear.

All very fair comments.

I was trying to introduce some middle ground between the status quo and enforced regulation. It seems my thoughts didn't get much traction.

Thanks for your eloquent input/comments.

[jdfreefly 1]

It's the first line in the group member pledge for DZO's wanting to join USPA.

Quote

Comply with the USPA Basic Safety Requirements (BSRs), which include compliance with the Federal Aviation
Regulations relevant to skydiving operations, including aircraft operations

That's the first bullet item in the pledge. As soon as you step on the DZ and try to jump from their airplanes, if it's a BSR it's their problem.

Quote

I think the example of other countries implementing limitations successfully should show us that we actually don't have much of a leg to stand on.

I've heard they've got rules in other countries, but I don't recall anyone ever presenting statistical evidence that over time it actually had a positive impact on the number of fatalities, or even the number of fatalities related to canopy flight.

If I may paraphrase the great skydiving scholar and philosopher Bill Booth, you make the sport safer, skydivers find a way to inject risk back into the equation and the fatality rate stays the same. If you believe that to be true, when you add regulation to the sport you end up with less freedom, less personal responsibility and the same number of fatalities.

I'm all for better training. I'm all for changing the attitude. We should all feel like it's our responsibility to educate and protect each other. I'm not for pushing it off on some central authority and asking them to legislate my safety for me. Skydiving is a dangerous activity, I don't think we can change that.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I've heard they've got rules in other countries, but I don't recall anyone ever presenting statistical evidence that over time it actually had a positive impact on the number of fatalities, or even the number of fatalities related to canopy flight.

So if a guy doesn't end up dead, you're not interested? One of the problems we have is that non-fatal incidents aren't recorded and available as data. As far as I'm concerned, anything that requires a hospital visit is worthy of being recorded and analyzed, and worthy of efforts to reduce repeats of the same incident.

Keeping in mind that there are far more non-fatal incidents than fatal incidents, and that there are no statistics regarding non-fatals, let's use some logic to tackle the bigger (literally) problem.

What is your personal opinion about WL limitations for jumpers under 500 jumps, and continuing education for jumpers under 500 jumps looking to downsize? Non-existant statistics aside, do you think that would be a benefit or a detractor to the situation regarding canopy selection and canopy flight in the US?

For my money, I see it as a benefit on many levels, and even if I'm wrong about any benefit, I can't see how it would do any harm.

[5.samadhi 0]

^ do you weigh them at the dropzone before every jump??? What if they lie about their weight 10lb and then strap on 20lb of lead???

[Baksteen 84]

10 lb isn't that exciting; it will make a difference of ~0.1 in wingloading. That kind of non-compliance isn't what will kill those hot shots - excuse me; "fast learners".

As to the additional 20 lb of lead at some point he'll be found out by the DZ staff while strapping on all that lead. Person gets a warning or grounding or in extreme cases can even get his license and/or any rating they possess suspended.
At least, those are possibilities over here, in accordance with the Ducth Basic Safety Regulations.

In practice, the instructor on duty has a certain leeway in how to deal with and/or enforce those BSRs. But the BSRs dealing with wingload, canopy size and currency at least exist, so the instructor has always something to back up his/her decision if a person is making unsafe decisions as to canopy size and won't listen to reason.

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[davelepka 4]

Quote

do you weigh them at the dropzone before every jump??? What if they lie about their weight 10lb and then strap on 20lb of lead???

That would be one way for a jumper to alter their WL. Another would be to just hook up a smaller canopy without telling anyone. Another would be to simply go to another DZ and lie about their jump numbers.

I never claimed that WL restrictions and continuing education was a 'perfect' solution, but while you're so quick to point out the flaws in the system, you haven't offered any alternate solutuions.

Very few 'solutions' in skydiving are perfect. Take the minimum pull altitudes for example. Name the DZ where the S&TA is sitting in the LZ with a laser range-finder, shooting every canopy as they open and then comparing those numbers to the jumpers license. Or point out the DZ that distributes data logging audibles to every jumper in the loading area, and collects them in the LZ and compares their deployment altitude to their license.

You can't do it because no DZ does either one of those, yet somehow most DZs don't have a problem with most jumpers pulling low. Why? Because the USPA made it a rule a few years back, and most people don't mind following the rules. The ones who broke the new rule eventually died, or quit jumping, or got sick of being the 'odd man out' and brought their pull altitudes up.

An informal study was done in the last 10 years or so, and it showed that the average jumper stays with the sport for something like 5 or 7 years. So if you make a new rule, within 5 to 7 years there's a whole new generation of jumpers who came into the sport with the 'new' rule already in place, and who (for the most part) will just accept it part of skydiving in general.

This is what happened to the attitudes about pull altitudes, after few years after the BSR, more and more jumpers came into the sport and simply accepted it as part of skydiving.

Min pull altitudes were in place when I started jumping, and I never thought twice about them. I didn't feel limited or like my 'freedom' had been diminished, I just accepted the rule as the 'way it was'. I happened to learn at a DZ that was 'liberal' with the rules, and had a handful of jumpers known to take to low, and they were allowed to do so without the management lifting a finger, which brings me to my other point.

With the rule in place, and some jumpers choosing to not follow it without repercussions, I had a choice to make early on to follow the rule, or just smoke it low and take my chances. I chose to follow the rule, and part of the reason was that there was a rule in place, and that made me think that it was important. Why would they have gone to the trouble to establish, print and teach min pull altitudes if there was no merit?

Canopy selection and continuing education are the same. Put the BSR in place, and the majority of people at the majority of DZs will follow it. New jumpers will choose to follow it, and regard it as important, because by making a BSR, we are regarding it as important. In time it will become ingrained in the landscape of skydiving (in the US) and it will 'uncool' to bust the BSR, just like most other BSRs. On top of that, time will only serve to weed out those who scoff at the 'new' rules, and bring new jumpers into the sport who won't know what it's like to jump without the new rules.

But yeah, I guess the existance of weight vests mean we should just give up, right?

[JackC1 0]

Quote

Put the BSR in place, and the majority of people at the majority of DZs will follow it.

The same could be said for putting a jump number restriction on the maximum rotation you could make onto final. The only argument people have made against that is someone would need to watch, but like you say, no one watches pull altitudes. The upside to rotation limits is that if someone where to watch, you could easily see rule breakers in real-time with no arguments. Unlike wing loading restrictions which would require accusations based on guesswork first, then measurements and calculations later to prove guilt or innocence. Plus a 270 is a 270 regardless of DZ elevation or temperature, but the flight characteristics of a canopy will change with elevation and temperature while wing loading remains constant

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

So if a guy doesn't end up dead, you're not interested?

I'm very interested, some of these accidents are terrible...people paralyzed, limbs amputated. The reality is we don't really track that data very well so it wouldn't be a reasonable request that someone advocating a BPA style WL restriction produce it. Maybe the BPA does track it and could produce it, and if so, I'd love to see it.

As far as my feeling on WL restrictions. I do think a WL BSR would harm DZOs by putting more responsibility on them to regulate things and thereby increase their liability.

I do believe that slowing people down and giving them time to learn more before they progress, as well as giving them the resources to learn (quality coaches and education materials) will reduce both the accident and fatality rates in the sport, as well as decrease canopy collisions.

I'm just not sure that a jump number based regulation is the the way to slow people down. I think I'd rather see us change the culture in the sport than change the rules. I realize that I seem to be in a shrinking minority.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[nigel99 143]

Quote

I'm just not sure that a jump number based regulation is the the way to slow people down. I think I'd rather see us change the culture in the sport than change the rules. I realize that I seem to be in a shrinking minority.

I must admit that I don't understand the aversion to rules. Regardless I do feel that the culture is starting to change. 5 years ago there was not really the admission that maybe jumping a 'swooping' canopy was not wise, if you didn't intend to swoop. There is a trickle of people upsizing. The tipping point seemed to occur around the time there was a spate of fatalities close together.

By the way I found another nugget in the SIM yesterday. In the section on downsizing, it recommends being able to consistently land within 10m of target DOWNWIND. I knew about accuracy for downsizing, but the downwind addition is interesting.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[JackC1 0]

Quote

advocating a BPA style WL restriction

As far as I know the BPA only mandate a WL restriction on students, not on licensed skydivers. The recommendations usually given are broadly in line with everyone else though.

The BPA does effectively have a ban on high performance landings for low jump numbers though. No speed inducement below C license (min 200 jumps) and then a requirement to build up from double fronts, to 45's, 90's, to 180's all under the supervision of a qualified canopy coach or instructor, eventually leading to a CP1 license endorsement. Turns over 180 degrees require more training as directed by a CP coach. A CP2 endorsement requires a minimum of 500 HP landings including 100 in the past 12 months and you need this before entering any competitions.

See the BPA Ops Manual Section 6.3

[Ron 7]

Quote

I think I'd rather see us change the culture in the sport than change the rules. I realize that I seem to be in a shrinking minority.

That is because hoping that people will change has not worked and we have been trying it for almost two decades.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[5.samadhi 0]

what about enforcing maximum drops per pass from an Ac? Maybe instead of dropping 20 people we should be dropping 5 at a time???

That sounds a pain in the ass but it would dramatically reduce canopy collisions which are apparently one of the leading causes of death (and since the best argument for restricting wingloading is to protect OTHERS not yourself it would make sense to control the environment of the skydiver rather than the contents of her container).

Im guessing a cessna dz has lots less canopy collisions than a turbine dz.

[Ron 7]

Quote

what about enforcing maximum drops per pass from an Ac? Maybe instead of dropping 20 people we should be dropping 5 at a time???

Thinking out of the box... Good.

But:
1. What about doing 8 way or 20 way skydives?
2. Are you willing to pay the extra cost of the fuel being burned?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[craigbey 0]

Quote

I do believe that slowing people down and giving them time to learn more before they progress, as well as giving them the resources to learn (quality coaches and education materials) will reduce both the accident and fatality rates in the sport, as well as decrease canopy collisions.

I'm just not sure that a jump number based regulation is the the way to slow people down. I think I'd rather see us change the culture in the sport than change the rules.

I think everyone agrees that the culture needs to change, but how do you ensure the educational resources you mentioned are:

1. properly developed and maintained
2. available to those who need them
3. consumed by those who need them

Would the required education or training kick in before someone downsizes or starts jumping a particular type of canopy?

[virgin-burner 1]

so, i was just browsing through the fatality-database on here.. while a lot of info's missing, it seems your best chances of dying are either as a student, or you have 1000+ jumps. in both cases, WL-restrictions wouldnt have helped, students get their gear from the dz, the 1000+ guys are out of question anyway..

there are apparently a lot of entanglements with either mains- and/or reserves. it would help more if the "minimum"-pull altitudes would be raised than restricting WL's.

pulling at 2500 is considered a low-pull where i jump. 4-4500 is "normal".

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

[Muffie 0]

Quote

so, i was just browsing through the fatality-database on here.. while a lot of info's missing, it seems your best chances of dying are either as a student, or you have 1000+ jumps. in both cases, WL-restrictions wouldnt have helped, students get their gear from the dz, the 1000+ guys are out of question anyway..

Not so sure of that. I checked my spreadsheet which covers 2004 to present - about 250 landing or collision/entanglement fatalities. About 70 of those had between 25 and 500 jumps, so they account for somewhere between a third and a fourth of the fatalities.

I only have WL for 13 of those. 10 of the 13 were over 1.4 WL. Other three were right at 1.2.

Almost all of the thirteen were somewhere between 250 and 500 jumps.

Looks like another 37 between 501 and 1,000 jumps. Have WL for eight of those. One was .9, the rest were over 1.4. (The low WL hit her head on an obstacle during an off landing in high winds.)

[crotalus01 0]

With pull altitudes that high, at what point do you guys break RW and track? 5500'? And at what altitude do your tandems normally deploy?

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

[virgin-burner 1]

i only went back to and including 2008, US and europe. but still, 10 or 13 out of 250 doesnt sound too bad. also WL's ranging from 1.2 to 1.4 sound "relatively" sensible.

in case where a guy jumps some jvx or 79 velo's, i assume they "know what they're doing", e.g. have 1000+ jumps. i really dont think a restriction of WL's would change that much.

reserve-problems seem to be a dominating factor tough! that means low cutaways or entanglements with either mains, the jumper himself and/or the jumpers gear.

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

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

With pull altitudes that high, at what point do you guys break RW and track? 5500'? And at what altitude do your tandems normally deploy?

for all i know, i've never done a tandem nor am i a TI, tandems deploy somewhere between 5- and 6000ft.

i also cant answer your question regarding RW, but the freefliers break off around 5-6000ft, depending on group-sizes..

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

[nigel99 143]

Quote

about 250 landing or collision/entanglement fatalities

In 8 years that is a lot of fatalities.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.