New SIM revision

[Ron 7]

Added to the new SIM:

Quote

Section 5-3 will include the following wing-loading recommendations as a maximum:
A license—1.0 psf maximum

B license—1.0 psf maximum

C license—1.2 psf maximum

D license—1.4 psf maximum

Further downsizing beyond the D license guideline above should be performed according to the downsizing progression listed in SIM Section 6-10 Advanced Canopy Flight.

I think it is a great idea.

Also since education is the Key (And making people get the education is the problem):

Quote

Canopy Education
USPA has begun a long-term public service campaign aimed at improving canopy skills and reversing the current trend in canopy accidents. The ads feature quotes from the US Canopy Team and longtime swooping competitor Kaz Sheekey and highlights six points which are the focus of the campaign:

Get professional canopy training
Learn new skills with a parachute suitable for your skill level.
Downsize gradually
Learn new canopy skills and landing techniques above 1,000 feet.
Respect other jumpers under canopy and in the landing area.
Plan the jump, jump the plan, and always have an out.


Look for additional promotions in the near future which will continue to focus on this message and promote safe canopy flight.



Canopy Control Summit
To continue and enhance USPA’s campaign for safe canopy flight, a two-day canopy control summit will be hosted by USPA on a date to be determined involving parachute manufacturers, canopy school providers, and canopy experts.

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

[outlawphx 1]

Wow, 1.2 until 500 jumps... That'll go over well

[airtwardo 6]

Look for additional promotions in the near future which will continue to focus on this message and promote safe canopy flight.


***

Let's hope it has the desired effect.

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

[tcnelson 1]

that's not too bad as far as i'm concerned. i load my sabre2 170 at about 1.2 and it provides plenty of swoop potential. i'm still dialing in 180's and just now toying with adding entry gates as a factor in my setup. it's got plenty of lift at higher speeds too for when digging is necessary.

all in all, 1.2 psf is a pretty good place to learn from and maybe i'm a slow learner but, i feel like i'm barely scratching the surface with about 200 landings where i have induced a higher landing speed.

so, for me, i haven't even attempted a 270 approach yet and dialing that in will take me well over the 500 jump mark.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[jumpjunkie2004 0]

Quote

Section 5-3 will include the following wing-loading recommendations as a maximum:

Will the people that really need to read this section even look at the new SIM?

Do they use the SIM at every DZ? I've been to a few DZs, but I only saw students with the SIM at Orange. It's almost like a bible.

Maybe the USPA should require that all AFF students purchase a copy of the SIM. Dropzones could include the price of it in the first jump. It's only $25.

This could be a marketing tool. Leaving your first AFF jump with a SIM, might influence people to come back for a second jump, etc.

I know the SIM can be downloaded, but having a book in your hand is very different than being able to find the information online.

And recommendations...are recommendations.

Too bad the USPA can't work with canopy manufactures to make purchase requirements. Such as - you have to hold a specific license before you can purchase a high performance canopy. Or make a regulation or something that would actually prevent people from downsizing too quickly.

Jump, Land, Pack, Repeat...

[Elisha 1]

Quote

Added to the new SIM:

Quote

Section 5-3 will include the following wing-loading recommendations as a maximum:
A license—1.0 psf maximum

B license—1.0 psf maximum

C license—1.2 psf maximum

D license—1.4 psf maximum

Further downsizing beyond the D license guideline above should be performed according to the downsizing progression listed in SIM Section 6-10 Advanced Canopy Flight.

I wonder why they said License and not jump numbers. Many here have said that they don't plan on progressing to another license as it isn't worth it....unless they want to make getting your license at the # of jumps automatic.

[billvon 2,400]

>I wonder why they said License and not jump numbers.

Because each license has canopy accuracy skills associated with them. Jump numbers alone say nothing about your skill (although they are often related.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

***Section 5-3 will include the following wing-loading recommendations as a maximum:
A license—1.0 psf maximum
B license—1.0 psf maximum

With a significant (majority?) of jumpers buying their first canopy at 1.05 - 1.1 currently, are they making this section deemed irrelevent from the onset? Or are they hoping this will lead to a change in buying (and just as importantly, selling) practices?

I suspect the *former*. The C and D requirement are more conservative than even Germain's chart. A recommended max for D holders? Though it makes sense to suggest that for people who don't jump at a very high frequency, I see that being tuned out as well.

edit- former, not latter.

[ChrisL 2]

Is this something that USPA member dropzones will be expected to enforce?

And if so, will jumpers that are currenly over the limit be forced to buy new gear or will they be grandfathered?

I'm not sure I understand how this would be enforced.
Currenly all I need for my B license is the water training and the written test. Does this mean that in addition to water training I will now be forced to buy a larger canopy
to get the B since I'm currently over the suggested WL for the B license?

__

My mighty steed

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Is this something that USPA member dropzones will be expected to enforce?

And if so, will jumpers that are currenly over the limit be forced to buy new gear or will they be grandfathered?

I'm not sure I understand how this would be enforced.
Currenly all I need for my B license is the water training and the written test. Does this mean that in addition to water training I will now be forced to buy a larger canopy
to get the B since I'm currently over the suggested WL for the B license?

Relax. The BSR's are mandatory, everything else is recommended. The new wingloading guidelines are included in section 5 "General Recommendations," including such things as weather, RSL's recurrency training, spotting. There isn't a USPA enforcement policy for this material. The advantage of getting it in the SIM is that jumpers who read the book will see it and have direct guidance. S&TA's will also be able to reference the printed SIM material when talking with jumpers. If you are loaded over the suggested wing loading, take just a moment or two to think about your skill level...a lot of very experienced jumpers got together to write the guidelines, and while they may not be mandatory, they are worth thinking about.

The SIM is an especially great resource for students and low time jumpers because it exposes them to concepts like wing loading that may be missed in their training.
.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[billvon 2,400]

>Is this something that USPA member dropzones will be expected to enforce?

Note the word "recommendations."

>Does this mean that in addition to water training I will now be forced
> to buy a larger canopy to get the B since I'm currently over the
> suggested WL for the B license?

No. Hopefully it will make you consider your wingloading more carefully, though. The air hasn't changed; the canopies that were aggressive five years ago are still just as unforgiving, as the incidents forum has shown.

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

>Is this something that USPA member dropzones will be expected to enforce?

Note the word "recommendations."

>Does this mean that in addition to water training I will now be forced
> to buy a larger canopy to get the B since I'm currently over the
> suggested WL for the B license?

No. Hopefully it will make you consider your wingloading more carefully, though. The air hasn't changed; the canopies that were aggressive five years ago are still just as unforgiving, as the incidents forum has shown.

A problem that I have is that I am a bodybuilder (non-pro).
My body weight fluctuates up and down considerably over the course of a year. Part of the year I am in line with the recomendations and part of the year I'm over it.
1.2 on a 190 sq ft sabre2 is the heavy end.
Sadly, while I would prefer to have multiple canopies for the various times of the year, I cant financially make that happen right now :-)
In a year or two I plan to make that a reality.

__

My mighty steed

[billvon 2,400]

>My body weight fluctuates up and down considerably over the course
> of a year. Part of the year I am in line with the recomendations and
> part of the year I'm over it. 1.2 on a 190 sq ft sabre2 is the
>heavy end.

That can indeed be a problem. If you are pretty current, you're probably OK starting with a canopy that's within the recommendations (and more importantly within your skill level) then getting comfortable on it as your loading increases. If you have to give up jumping for the winter, AND you are heaviest in the spring, a larger canopy might be a very good idea - since you will be least current when you need it most.

[apoil 0]

Quote

>Is this something that USPA member dropzones will be expected to enforce?

Note the word "recommendations."

Still, these numbers are so on the conservative side that it will dilute impact of any other recommendations the USPA makes.

People will be jumping 1.3 at 200 jumps. Especially bigger folks. For the most part they wont even be endangering themselves. They are going to look at USPA's "recommendations" regarding Pull altitudes, AAD usage, RSL's, Safe Freefly Progression, etc. with a lot less respect.

[billvon 2,400]

>Still, these numbers are so on the conservative side that it will dilute
>impact of any other recommendations the USPA makes.

We talked about this ad infinitum. If they're too conservative no one will listen. If they're too aggressive people will follow them and die. If they're mandatory people will bitch about them. If they're optional no one will listen to them. Ah well. In the end it's up to you. Write your own recommendations if you wish; just realize that the SIM was written in blood, so decide how much of your own you want to use when you rewrite them.

[Shark 0]

Quote

Wow, 1.2 until 500 jumps... That'll go over well

They're recommendations, not laws.

USPA is trying to make it harder for you to kill yourself.

[ECVZZ 0]

Quote

just realize that the SIM was written in blood

Damn, that's a powerful statement...made me stop and think.

G. Jones

"I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around, the more I think it might not be a bad idea."

[sd-slider 0]

Quote

Damn, that's a powerful statement...made me stop and think.

"DITTO!"

I read the "RECOMMENDATIONS" and though I am in "Slight" immediate violation (1.09), I feel that I am very comfortable where I'm at W/L wise and will continue on my current loading, until, and only until, those who are much wiser, my self assessment, and abilities deem it is appropriate.

After all, the goal is to stay alive and progress, isn't it!

Anvil Brother #69

Sidelined with a 5mm C5-C6 herniated disk...
Back2Back slammers and 40yr old fat guys don't mix!

[apoil 0]

Quote

>Still, these numbers are so on the conservative side that it will dilute
>impact of any other recommendations the USPA makes.

We talked about this ad infinitum. If they're too conservative no one will listen. If they're too aggressive people will follow them and die. If they're mandatory people will bitch about them. If they're optional no one will listen to them. Ah well. In the end it's up to you.

I fully appreciate these difficulties. I'm concerned however that you (or whomever) failed to take into account the impact that one set of recommendations can have on the body of recommendations as a whole.

It's ok to err on the side of safety in most cases, but by making a recommendation that the vast majority are unlikely to follow, it puts everything else in question, especially to the newer jumper.
Recommended pull altitudes? USPA just recommends 3000 feet, that's probably over conservative.
Advanced discipline progression? They can't possibly be serious that it's unsafe for 3 beginning sit fliers to try flying head down together.

Being taken seriously requires consistency - and this particular one seems to go to far.

And again, nearly all of the canopy related injuries and fatalities that I have experience of, involve jumpers at a wingloading deemed appropriate for their skill level.

[billvon 2,400]

>but by making a recommendation that the vast majority are unlikely
> to follow, it puts everything else in question, especially to the newer
> jumper.

A few things:

1. It wasn't just me; I was just one of about a dozen people who has been hounding USPA for about two years to do something like this.

2. You are free to ignore any recommendation you want in the SIM, from RW training to freeflying partners to canopy loadings. They are not there for the people who need policing, they are there for the people who look to the SIM as a guide to surviving their first 500 jumps.

3. Things that are a consistent problem, like pull altitudes, eventually become BSR's that _are_ enforced. If inexperienced pilots under heavy loadings continue to be a problem, then it will eventually become a BSR. We can avoid that by exercising some restraint when it comes to downsizing rapidly.

[fred 0]

Quote

People will be jumping 1.3 at 200 jumps. Especially bigger folks.

This is my issue with it. I've seen 120# girls jumping 140 sq ft canopies at about 1:1 and they come in fast, with both more forward speed and greater vertical descent. I've seen 230# men jumping 190 sq ft canopies (around 1.3:1) that come in much more docile. I'm around 200#, loading at 1.1:1 (and a fresh A license, thus greatly exceeding the BSR), but I can land pretty accurately, crosswind or downwind, and feel like I have a lot more time in comparison to make decisions. I stand up most of my landings, can do flat turns at reasonable altitudes, and can land in half brakes. Given a potentially bad off-landing or mistake on approach, I think I'm better situated (due to equipment, not experience) to land safely than a lighter person at a lower wingloading.

While I'm not anxious to downsize, it seems that wingloading, while easy to calculate, is not sufficient to represent what seems to be a nonlinear relationship of risk versus exit weight/canopy size, and thus should not be the basis of a BSR.

I hope I don't sound like a statistic waiting to happen (that is, I really hope I'm not), but my observations tell me that lighter people should be more conservative with wingloading, and heavier people can go a bit higher without increasing their risk of a hospital visit.

[Brian425 0]

It might not be popular; but, I think it's a good idea. While it may not have the intended impact on current jumpers, I think it will reinforce what is taught to our new jumpers. If we can get the new jumpers to follow these guidlines, it may have a positive influence on future jumpers. And since it is a "recommendation", it give us some wiggle room to tailor it to individuals.

I was lucky. I learned at a place where instructors took an interest in all the students. I was given a list of appropriate canopies to consider when I was off student status. I was told "If you insist on buying something stupid, I'll remind you of the bad decision when they load you in the ambulance." It was a joke and the truth at the same time. Having instructors who were willing go the extra mile and help pick out gear and inspect went a long way for me. It had a positive impact on my skydiving and my outlook on this sport.

The only time you should look down on someone is when you are offering them your hand.

[kelpdiver 2]

so why the relatively small reserve?

[Brian425 0]

Kelp, a fair question. My coach felt that it was still a safe enough size to use. I told that reserves tend to be of a very conservative design and I should have no problem flying it. My original plan was to have a larger reserve; but, I bought used so I had to make the best decision based on real life (funds, availability, etc)

Even though it is comparatively small, I am still only loading it a little over 1.1. I agree not ideal for a stressful situation; but, I am betting my safety that it will be effective.

The only time you should look down on someone is when you are offering them your hand.

[kelpdiver 2]

Brian, not to pick on you in particular, but this is the problem. You believe these new recommended MAXIMUMS are a good idea, but you're not going to follow them yourself.

During all the talk about making WL a BSR, there was way too much talk about grandfathering as well. No leading by example.

I think it would have worked better if these 1.0/1.2/1.4 suggestions were recommended wing loadings, not recommended max's.