Re: [Kallend] Landing Injury West Tennessee Skydiving 07 May 2005

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You need not several, but one, and could be spending this time refining it.

What's wrong with Scott Miller's or Jim Slaton's?

For one, there's two of them. So which one is it? Has it been spelled out here in these discussions? I've taken neither, but do know that SM has two classes. Is the first one comprehensive? BG's was very detailed in some of the material, didn't cover others very much. He has certain material he will do, and then the jumpers in the class help drive the rest. Absolutely nothing wrong with that format for a voluntary canopy class, but it's not the same as what even he would do for A requirements, talked about here.

Then there are the issues of how you would encourage or require taking it, how much it should cost, ... lots of details there.

It's easy to have the same circular arguments about WL and AADs and make lots of strawmen (I liked how the choice was either a 'sensible canopy' or a VX39), it doesn't really accomplish much. Kind of like most threads in Speaker's Corner. Wouldn't it be better to direct all that fighting energy everyone has into a finished product?

[Hooknswoop 19]

USPA doesn't want a CC course, so why waste the time to present them with something they won't use? The first step is getting support for the idea.

Derek

[billvon 2,426]

>A line-over malfunction on the VR system presents you with visual
>clues showing that you are spinning/in an uncontrollable situation.

I dunno about that. I've spun a plane in a very good, but non-motion, flight simulator, and I've spun a Cessna 150. The two were nothing like each other. If anything, I think the hanging-harness training we do (i.e. put someone in a harness, run through the dive, then spin them like crazy and make sure they cut away) is closer to the real thing than a VR simulation would be.


> I guess we could conclude that all of our training is "good enough"
>right now and quit trying to improve it.

Although it sounds callous - yes, I think we _do_ need to do that in many cases. Do we need to add a chamber ride to student training, so they can recognize the symptoms of incipient hypoxia? I don't think so, because we don't have much of a problem with that now. If 12 people a year were dying because hypoxia caused them to make bad decisions, then we might consider it. That's why you're seeing something of a stink now about HP canopy training, because the lack of such training _is_ killing people.

>I do think it could be improved upon, if we decided to spend the
> money on training equipment that gave a better "feel" for the
> experience prior to putting someone out the door.

Again, I agree that that would be good - but I also think that giving every student a tandem before their first jump would do much the same thing (i.e. "this is a turn, it's not a spin; that's what a good canopy looks like") and would also give them training and experience in exactly the same environment they will be in when they jump on their own. And that would be a lot cheaper.

I think that having a VR simulator at a big DZ would be a great idea, and if you wanted to set one up I'd be all for it. But I would really hesitate to consider adding such complex gear to standard USPA student training, given that we don't really know what problems it solves.

>You team this up with tunnel time and you could have a decent
> skydiver that had never been in an airplane, they go hand-in-hand.

True; the tunnel at Perris is being used for student training quite effectively. It all comes down to money and what you spend it on, and what gets you the biggest bang for the buck.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

USPA doesn't want a CC course, so why waste the time to present them with something they won't use? The first step is getting support for the idea.

and you will likely get ALOT more support by emphasizing the Training aspects vs the Restrictions you wish to impose... will it save/prevent everyone and everything? of course not... nothing ever will, but it will go alot farther to changing the culture and encourage the diffusion of actual information simply because it is available, advertised and encouraged...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

USPA doesn't want a CC course, so why waste the time to present them with something they won't use? The first step is getting support for the idea.

Derek

USPA 'R Us. Put together a slate of candidates that support your ideas and pursuade skydivers to elect them to the BOD. Until you make that effort, your complaining sounds a lot like whining.

Some of us skydive because it is, relatively speaking, free of excessive interference from on high, and we like it that way.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

and you will likely get ALOT more support by emphasizing the Training aspects vs the Restrictions you wish to impose... will it save/prevent everyone and everything? of course not... nothing ever will, but it will go alot farther to changing the culture and encourage the diffusion of actual information simply because it is available, advertised and encouraged...

The information and schools are out there. The problem is the jumper with 200 jumps flying a canopy at 1.8:1 that thinks he can handle it and doesn't need the training. That is the person that needs it. how do suggest they actually get it? How do suggest to keep people from flying canopies they obviously are not ready for?

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

USPA 'R Us.

No, USPA R You, not me.

Quote

Put together a slate of candidates that support your ideas and pursuade skydivers to elect them to the BOD. Until you make that effort, your complaining sounds a lot like whining.

I'm not inclined to try and convince anyone to run for the BOD. I'll leave that for USPA members that care. I'm sorry if you think trying to make a difference and reduce preventable injuries and fatalities from landings is 'whining'. That sounds heartless and cold to me. Don't you care?

Quote

Some of us skydive because it is, relatively speaking, free of excessive interference from on high, and we like it that way.

And some of you will be injured or killed because they are flying canopies they are not ready for and have not recieved the training and education they need to fly safely.

Derek

[Zenister 0]

you dont.. you simply hope that they will serve as an example to others..

if you are offered water in the desert and turn it down, your fate is in your own hands...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

you dont.. you simply hope that they will serve as an example to others..

So you are saying do nothing. Youa re OK with people jumping canopies they aren't ready for and pounding in?

Derek

[marks 0]

you can lead a camell to water, but you cant make them drink......

jeese, if it wasnt for some asshole... that saying would have no meaning to me right now...

[EvilLurker 2]

Quote

> I guess we could conclude that all of our training is "good enough"
>right now and quit trying to improve it.

Although it sounds callous - yes, I think we _do_ need to do that in many cases.

No, that doesn't sound callous, it's honest. I tend to agree with you. Thanks for taking time to read my opinions and reply, I appreciate it.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

you dont.. you simply hope that they will serve as an example to others..

So you are saying do nothing. Youa re OK with people jumping canopies they aren't ready for and pounding in?

do nothing? not at all... do many things. Develop, promote, continue to refine and improve the teaching methods and information that is 'freely' available to all.....

OK with? call me cold hearted if you wish but yes, i am..... after all it is their life they risk, not mine... and far more people will see them, and seek more information to improve themselves..some of whom might recognize they are in fact "in over their head" and so change their fate...

one of the unrecognized/unrecorded numbers is how many people DO fly canopies successfully now, both with and without instruction and mandatory restrictions simply because they dont make the spectacular 'splash' that the stubborn failures and the highly trained 'errors' do... i'll easily wager it is magnitudes higher than the handful of incidents each year...

no one makes you skydive... no one can save you from yourself but you.... if you cant be bothered to get all the information available to you on your own..... well... take up bowling.. or at least get video so someone else might learn from your mistake...

impose (by mandate) my personally acceptable risk level on others? never.

i once did ALOT of freeclimbing.. the risk was part of why i did it. the black and white choices ("do or do not" to borrow a phrase in vogue atm) gave it real meaning, no half measures, no maybes..... no one should EVER take those kinds of choices away from any individual.. even if their decisions kill them... to do so would make life less valuable, less meaningful for everyone, even those who are unaware of the freedom they have lost...

i would never force you to live inside my 'box'. i expect you to extend me the same courtesy.....even if it (and it very well may) kills me one day.....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Hooknswoop 19]

I don't think anarchy is the way to go.

Derek

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

Quote

USPA 'R Us.

No, USPA R You, not me.

Quote

Put together a slate of candidates that support your ideas and pursuade skydivers to elect them to the BOD. Until you make that effort, your complaining sounds a lot like whining.

I'm not inclined to try and convince anyone to run for the BOD. I'll leave that for USPA members that care. I'm sorry if you think trying to make a difference and reduce preventable injuries and fatalities from landings is 'whining'. That sounds heartless and cold to me. Don't you care?

Well informed adults should be allowed to make their own decisions. The effort should go into making them well informed. I don't want the USPA to nanny me; I would like the USPA to keep me informed.

...

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

[Zenister 0]

Quote

I don't think anarchy is the way to go.

nice strawman... (why does that happen so often in this debate?)

Self Determination is not Anarchy.. Anarchy would allow me to do whatever i wished to you with no consequence other than what you might do to me...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Hooknswoop 19]

So no BSR's then? (which is what I meant)

Do you thin an AAF Level 1 student is equipped to decide if they should jump with an AAD or not?

Derek

[freakydiver 0]

I am not Ok with that.

Also - to call this discussion a bunch of whining is complete shit - directed at "you know who you are". God forbid we actually care about our fellow jumper - seems to me that was one of the major reasons I got into the sport in the first place - the camaraderie. Ahh to be so callous and irreverent.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[Zenister 0]

Recommendations and guidelines included in the SIM? Increasing the focus on CC training as part of the existing licensing process? Better, more developed canopy control courses and certified instructors to encourage continuing education? Absolutely.

restrictions to tell licensed adult skydivers what, when and how they may fly? Never.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

USPA doesn't want a CC course, so why waste the time to present them with something they won't use? The first step is getting support for the idea.

Your first step seems to be all about a BSR, which has poor support, both in the community and in the BOD. It's definitely a lot less work to suggest rules then to develop education. But the latter will be more effective. I'm not ready to call you lazy, because you're putting a heck of a lot of effort into tilting at windmills. Sure seems like it could be better directed. It's much easier to get support for a positive thing (education) than a restrictive rule.

Dropzones have implemented WL limits without the USPA already. They can do the same with an improved canopy course. Did the ISP predate all DZs that did something beyond the 7 jump AFF program? Even if no DZ used it, a fresh A jumper could take the dive flows, ask people at the DZ questions, and run through the program at little expense. If it works well, it will gain acceptance, and incorporation into the norm.

If you don't see leadership at the top, create it at the bottom. I can't fix crappy scuba instruction as driven by PADI and SSI, but I can put my friends through finishing school as soon as they get their c card.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Your first step seems to be all about a BSR, which has poor support, both in the community and in the BOD. It's definitely a lot less work to suggest rules then to develop education. But the latter will be more effective. I'm not ready to call you lazy, because you're putting a heck of a lot of effort into tilting at windmills. Sure seems like it could be better directed. It's much easier to get support for a positive thing (education) than a restrictive rule.

I agree education is the way to go, but that doesn;t seem to be working because the jumpers that need it are not getting it. How do you suggest that get fixed? I agree a BSR is a last resort. I am open to any other ideas, but none have been forthcoming. A change is needed, that much I know.

Derek

[jlmiracle 7]

Hooknswoop, I agree education is the first step too, my question is, is there enough GOOD information, reliable information that can be taught and is there enough qualified people to teach it. Can we keep up with the new technology?

I remember when I first started skydiving and the little elipitcal canopies were starting to come out and there landing them was all pretty much guess work.


Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

I agree education is the first step too, my question is, is there enough GOOD information, reliable information that can be taught and is there enough qualified people to teach it.

I think the information is getting out there. It appears to be gaining momentum. More and more Scott Miller/Ian Bobo/Jim Slaton, etc classes are getting booked across the country. To me, it's a good thing. In a sense I think we're admitting to ourselves that we've neglected this too long.

Quote

Can we keep up with the new technology?

I hope so!
Just my thoughts.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Hooknswoop, I agree education is the first step too, my question is, is there enough GOOD information, reliable information that can be taught and is there enough qualified people to teach it. Can we keep up with the new technology?

I think the answer to that question is a definate yes. Get the current CC course Instructors together (sounds like a good use of USPA funds) and have them put together a USPA course and an Instructor's course.

The problem is getting people to take the course. Great courses are already available. How many jumpers that were flying canopies they weren't ready for and either died or were injured had taken one of these good courses?

What is so wrong about required education and training for those pushing their CC limits? Isn't that the smart way to go?

Derek

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

What is so wrong about required education and training for those pushing their CC limits? Isn't that the smart way to go?

I have no problem requiring education, I'm just concerned if we are listening to the "right" people that have the right information. At one point seperation was taught or was an accepted practice by the 45 degree angle BS and we know that doesn't work, although some of the "experienced seasoned" jumpers out there still bring it up. I'm also concerned of ANOTHER additional cost to new jumpers. The cost of learning to skydive now is considerably higher than when I started.

When we have new canopies out - Who is going to teach us how to fly them if they are new? Who and how are they going to gain the experience to fly these canopies.

When I bot my safire, it took alot of trial and ERROR to land that puppy and it is a pretty forgiving canopy. No one told me it was going to be so difficult to land because no one knew.

j

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I agree education is the way to go, but that doesn;t seem to be working because the jumpers that need it are not getting it. How do you suggest that get fixed? I agree a BSR is a last resort. I am open to any other ideas, but none have been forthcoming. A change is needed, that much I know.

[didn't have an off the cuff answer, thought about it overnight]

I think you have 3 types of jumpers to deal with:
1- safety minded and willing/interested in canopy training. But availability, esp at smaller DZs, is limited.
2- jumpers that don't know what they don't know, if coaxed or forced into a CC would benefit.
3- jumpers that 'know what they're doing.' Would only take CC if forced. Would benefit from the technique lessons but would ignore the safety information.

I see the CC as not being focused on HP landings so much as all the fundamentals on turns, toggle and riser inputs, dealing with traffic, so forth.

As I read you I believe you're focused on the third group, but I'm not sure anything will be very successful there. Even a WL BSR has limitations, esp if you buy into the Skydiving article asserting that 180s and 270s are more dangerous on lightly loaded canopies because of the smaller altitude window.

I've been more interested in helping the first two groups who are getting hurt doing low panic turns or not dealing well with out landings. That said, I don't quite subscribe to a live and let die attitude towards the third group because of the number of in air collisions.

For DZs that have a segregated section for swoopers, it seems simple to require jumpers to get cleared by the DZO/ST&A before they can start going there. If other swoopers feel he is posing a risk, can ask that it be revoked.

Talking about this particular accident in Tennessee, I'm not sure what would have worked. Maybe you want the initial canopy choice forbidden, but 150 good jumps would likely satisfy any standards requirement.