Regulating Wingloading

[skykittykat 0]

I was reading the accident awaiting to happen thread and on it was a few posts about regulating wingloading.

I think this has some good merits to it, however, rather than bringing in more rules, what about following the British system....

You turn up at a dz there and a rigger or CCI checks out your gear and log book. It is up to the rigger whether you can jump your gear or not. Reasons being, either unsafe gear or the wingloading/canopy type is too unsuitable for that person and their experience.

That person could leave the dz and go to another one, but chances are the rigger or CCI at the next dz will say exactly the same thing, or has been informed beforehand if necessary.

Information for buying gear could be made more available, eg, a little handbook handed out with the A licence for guidelines, wingloading, different types of canopy, etc.

Wondering what people's thoughts were on this.

Liz

[billvon 2,478]

>You turn up at a dz there and a rigger or CCI checks out your gear
>and log book.

This is contained in my wingloading proposal. A canopy coach can 'sign you off' for given loadings; that way an S+TA at another DZ can check your logbook and see if you are competent to jump that gear.

Without that signoff it becomes a your-word-against-theirs sort of thing. "What do you mean I can't jump this? Brian Germain himself taught me how to fly it, and he designed this canopy! Are you saying you know more about this gear and my skills than the guy who designed it and trained me?"

>That person could leave the dz and go to another one, but chances
> are the rigger or CCI at the next dz will say exactly the same thing . . .

Only if they get the same story (unless there's a signoff.)

>or has been informed beforehand if necessary.

This doesn't work well in a country with dozens of drop zones.

[Superman32 0]

Just read another incident 80 jumps without jumping for 8 months and a wingloading of 1.75 It seems that people are really trying to kill themselves.
Student progression is regulated (AFF,SL and license req) I don't understand why Bill's proposal can't be easily adopted. You're not preventing people from downsizing you just making sure that they're doing it when they are ready

Inveniam Viam aut Faciam
I'm back biatches!

[bodypilot1 0]

What makes everyone think just because someone is a "rigger", that they would know what to do in a case like this?




Be safe.
Ed

www.WestCoastWingsuits.com
www.PrecisionSkydiving.com

[mark 106]

Quote

What makes everyone think just because someone is a "rigger", that they would know what to do in a case like this?

Amen. An FAA-certificated rigger doesn't need to jump, and isn't required to have an instructional rating, and doesn't need to be a member of USPA, FAI, BPA, CSPA, AOPA, DOT, DEA, or FCC. He just needs to pack 20 reserves (a couple days work), do some other minor maintenance tasks, and answer a few multiple-choice questions (questions which are known before hand, and for which answer guides are available).

Most riggers do better than the minimums, but there's nothing in the rating to make that so.

I'm in favor of a system of canopy instructor ratings, and in the interim I'm happy to see USPA adopting some guidelines. I'm in favor of advice from S&TAs, and I'm in favor of enforcement by DZOs.

Mark

[Brian425 0]

Skykittykat,
I agree with the idea of your post; however, I think we are going about it the wrong way. I think the way to go is drill it into the students from the very beginning. Teach them that a docile canopy loaded 1:1 can still far outperform the pilot at lower jump numbers. There also needs to be more canopy training in the student progression. I think a modified Scott Miller or Brian Germain type of course should be added. The key is early training.
We also need to change the culture a little. Some people feel pushed to downsize by there peers. I think the more experienced jumpers should be discouraging low number jumpers from downsizing.
If we cannot do this, I think the only way to go is to limit canopy loading until at least the B license or a modified version of the Billvon plan. I just don't like the "regulated" portion of this option.
The key is that we need to protect ourselves. Personally I'll be staying on my belly for a minimum of 100 jumps. When I reach a level profeciency on my belly, I will look to other disciplines. When I can out fly my Safire 189, I'll look to get something else. The key is moving in a methodical sensible way. That is what we need to teach the newbies.

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

[ryoder 1,412]

Quote

You turn up at a dz there and a rigger or CCI checks out your gear and log book. It is up to the rigger whether you can jump your gear or not. Reasons being, either unsafe gear or the wingloading/canopy type is too unsuitable for that person and their experience.

A rigger has no responsibility nor authority to make any decisions regarding a jumper's skill level. He can only make a decision on whether the rig is legal and airworthy.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[BeattheDrums 0]

I just don’t see a simple "one size fits all" policy that would work for everybody. Since everyone learns at a different pace some would be ready for smaller canopies faster than others would be. Also everyone focuses on learning something different. Some people want to learn about how their canopy flies and what they can make it do. Others are more concerned about flying their body and merely use their canopy as a way to get to the ground. If we implement a policy that regulates wing loading to jump numbers what’s to stop a person from just jumping a lot, not learning anything about his canopy, and then downsizing to keep up with the "cool kids"? I suppose a proficiency test could be given to make sure that person is safe to down size would work, but I have a feeling that that could quickly become a "buddy" system with people just signing off their friends, or people just not taking the regs seriously. Not to mention what would happen to all those people that are out there that don’t meet the standards set forth in the new regs? Would they be grandfathered in? Or would the DZs they jump at be given the daunting task of testing everyone? Would there be an allotted amount of time in which the DZs have to comply before their group Membership was pulled? Then would the smaller DZs be able to test everyone and have them all within standards in timely manner? And if not would half of their jumpers get fed up with the wait and the go else where?
So now we've either got a bunch of people that the new regs don’t apply to or we have some pissed off people because they are now getting told that they can't jump the parachute that they own because it’s too small for them. Or option C we create a very complicated system that allots for just about all of those situations. Then it becomes a mess of "are you a CAT II Canopy pilot or are you still waiting to complete skill set A13?" Kind of thing? Which in my opinion would deter many people from continuing into the sport. Or would create some DZs that would just ignore the rules just to make the extra money.
The best regulations are ones that are black and white and simply apply to everyone. Things become too confusing when we start allowing exceptions. The plans I've read would work well on a single DZ but not really on a large scale (I haven’t read all the proposals I'm sure)
my solution would be to incorporate more canopy training into the initial student training. Explaining why wing loading is so important and show them why having a canopy that is of a wing loading and design that they can handle is important. Then make the different license harder to obtain by adding more proficiency requirements and offer prep courses that would help people pass the license exams... People would not be required to attend the courses but it would be recommended. Likewise people that already have the license and rating would be grandfathered in and be strongly encouraged to attend the courses to cover the new material. If people choose to take advantage of the training, great. If not that’s fine. It was offered. Ultimately People are responsible for themselves. As much as we hate to see our friends die we can't regulate this sport and make it safe. I guess what the point of all that was that we can’t make a foolproof system and even if we could people would find a way around the rules.

Wow that turned out to be long. Okay I'm getting off my soapbox now...

Dan

A thunder of jets in a clear blue sky, a streak of gray and a cheerful "Hi"

[btucker 0]

Yes I agree, and that is what happens here most of the time – but it's an informal process. Easy on most DZs as they are small and the CI knows everyone.

Over the easter weekend one got in under the radar. Visiting jumper at a boogie with well under a hundred jumps did a very low toggle turn on a 120sqft canopy. He he got *very* lucky – ambulance, not life flight. Someone made the salient point that the same thing still would have happened on a larger canopy – just slightly less medical bills. I do wonder how he got through registration. This DZ is strict. Normally what I see is a credential & gear check + a 101 with the CI.


Years ago in Australia we had wing loading cards anything over 1.3 had to be signed off – long since unofficially & officially scrapped.


With the guru's down sizing to the latest generation canopy, I wonder what is going to happened their old “large” ones – like the 104s. You can be anyone on the Internet and buy anything.



Education is the best answer but the 1% ruin it for everyone, draconian rules prevaill least we all play lawn bowls!


edit: maybe not a rigger but a canopy coach. -> We have a freefly crest system, to do bigger than a 3way one must prove themselves in a sequence of jumps with a freefly tutor. Nb: The initial bunch of freelfly tutors where grandfathered.
Blues Benno

Quote

I was reading the accident awaiting to happen thread and on it was a few posts about regulating wingloading.

I think this has some good merits to it, however, rather than bringing in more rules, what about following the British system....

You turn up at a dz there and a rigger or CCI checks out your gear and log book. It is up to the rigger whether you can jump your gear or not. Reasons being, either unsafe gear or the wingloading/canopy type is too unsuitable for that person and their experience.

That person could leave the dz and go to another one, but chances are the rigger or CCI at the next dz will say exactly the same thing, or has been informed beforehand if necessary.

Information for buying gear could be made more available, eg, a little handbook handed out with the A licence for guidelines, wingloading, different types of canopy, etc.

Wondering what people's thoughts were on this.

Liz

[skykittykat 0]

Quote

What makes everyone think just because someone is a "rigger", that they would know what to do in a case like this?

Apologies - the riggers that I have met in the UK all have instructor ratings, so I basically meant anyone who had the relevant ratings could sign off, etc.

My view was to put the onus on the dzs, eg, from the thread that I quoted, the dz could stop that person from jumping the gear that they turned up with and could potentially stop an injury/fatality.

Personally, I think that during student training there should be a minimum number of hop'n'pops so the student can focus on canopy only. This comes from personal experience (I wish I had had that) and from the difference in canopy control between students that have gone through the AFF system and those that have gone through static line.

Those students who progressed through static line are generally way better at canopy control than those who went through AFF.

My 2 cents worth

Liz

[kevinwhelan 0]

***
This is contained in my wingloading proposal. A canopy coach can 'sign you off' for given loadings; that way an S+TA at another DZ can check your logbook and see if you are competent to jump that gear.

This is very like the Irish System.
Our PAI licence also contain a canopy certification this is rated class 1 to class 4 and must be stamped and signed off

Class 1 is 0.75 to 1.0 lbs/ft and "reasonable performance"

Class 2 is 1.0 to 1.25 lbs/ft with high performance and quick responses
aprox 150 jumps

class 3 is 1.25 to1.75 lbs/ft
minimum 400 jumps with 100 jumps on class 2 canopies

Class 4 is 1.75lb/ft and above
750 jumps with substantial skills in class 3

I know these requirements are a bit vague and would need to be formalised to work where you have a lot of jumpers, but here in ireland the instructors know everyone on the dropzone.

I have seen guys turn up with a new canopy only to be told by the CCI that "unless you show me you rateing you're not jumping that"

may have saved them

"be honest with yourself. Why do I want to go smaller? It is not going to make my penis longer." ~Brian Germain, on downsizing

[Squeak 17]

In Oz the DZO of DZSO are the one who SHOULD be checking canpoy size and experience, but unfortunatley some DZs don't seem to care that much about it.
Fun jumpers can be seen as just another dollar in the slot machine



I hasten to add the DZ i jump at DOES care what you jump

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[yarpos 4]

Hi

Is that right Squeak?

So who are you dumping in that category from WA?

regards

Steve

regards, Steve
the older I get...the better I was

[Designer 0]

What persists in my mind is the "Common Sense Rule".But,we all know that goes straight out the window with some people.We try and try to hold the eager 1's back,but if they want something they will figure out a way to get it.Wing loading mandates might be the solution?You also have to remember that that way somebody is always going to be "UNhappy".Unhappy is still better than "Dead or Busted up".rob.

[sfzombie13 314]

i just looked at the statistics in the april parachutist, and the majority of the fatalities were 'd' license holders. i am a student with about 45 civilian and 35 military jumps. i was signed off on packing after jump # 11, and have spotted and hit the peas, not once, but 3 times. i was on a huge student canopy, i think it was a 270. i now own a 220 raider with a 24' round reserve. one time, i had this rig and couldn't jump it because it didn't have an aad in it yet, so i paid a pilot for a plane ride and jumped out over a bug field i scouted out not too far from the house at about 9000'. while i admit, it may not have been the smartest thing i ever did, it worked. the point i'm trying to make here is that there is no need for additional regulations, if you want to get around it, you can. everyone should be aware of what causes most fatalties and then try to avoid those mistakes. if they don't, oh well. it is tragic to see someone get killed(i have), but to punish everybody for those that do stupid things is assanine. and the dude on the 24' canopy? what was he thinking? just my opinion.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[Pendejo 0]

Quote

Just read another incident 80 jumps without jumping for 8 months and a wingloading of 1.75 It seems that people are really trying to kill themselves.
Student progression is regulated (AFF,SL and license req) I don't understand why Bill's proposal can't be easily adopted. You're not preventing people from downsizing you just making sure that they're doing it when they are ready

Its interesting... When you talk to some of the guys who have been around for a while about canopies, you start to see a trend in the story....

You can't jump that T-10!!! Its to high performance for someone with only 200 jumps. You'll kill your self...

No way you can jump that PARA-COMANDER!!!! Its to high performance for someone with only 200 jumps. You'll kill your self...

No way you can jump that STRATO-STAR(spelling)... Its to high performance for someone with only 200 jumps. You'll kill your self...

For those of you that don't know me there is a lot of sarcasm in my voice when I say those things...

I think Bill is on the right track. I do think that there are some concerns about what happens to a DZO when his volunteer manifest person is under the gun, dealing with tandem masters, vidiots (like me), and keeping the plane in the air, all at the same time. Then a new jumper shows up.... Manifest forgets to look at the canopy size.... The new jumper burns in....

We now have a new area for the scum of the earth (lawyers that would take the case) to come after the DZ while the rest of the skydiving community says.... "Well they should have followed our new program."

I know that we need something to cause people to get the proper training to not kill themselves. I just don't think that giving another opportunity for a DZ to get sued is the best answerer.

As to the other programs out there, it seems that both Great Briton and Australia run about the same percentage of landing and low turn incidents as in the U.S. (did a quick read through of the skydive fatalities web site).

Telling people that they can't jump the canopy they bought less than a year ago (allowing time as was suggested) is a great way to cause people to quit skydiving.

I've watched a lot of people purchase a rig that they could not really afford, now we are going to tell them.... No.... In our infinite wisdom.... Even though you have been jumping that size main at THIS DZ for the last year, today its to small for you and you have to buy another one or you cant jump at any U.S.P.A. member DZ.

The short easy answerer is not that they would still be alive.... With that kind of short sighted thinking we won't have anything to worry about.... There won't be a DZ to jump at.

I am interested in causing people to gain the education required to stop killing themselves. I am also interested in keeping the sport of skydiving alive. It seems there has to be a happy medium in there somewhere... Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to see what that is yet.

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[btucker 0]

Quote

Telling people that they can't jump the canopy they bought less than a year ago (allowing time as was suggested) is a great way to cause people to quit skydiving.

Balance person freedom vs the collective. The classic [bad?] example is seatbelt laws.


An easy call for the DZSO on a small DZ that knows and has watched the individual. Now what does the poor DZSO do at a boogie where there are international jumpers on gear they might not have even see before?

Sadly it seems some can't listen and don't want to learn or will even lie to the DZSO. There is a not insignificant danger that non skydiving bodies (i.e FAA/CASA) regulate WL for us - If we can't get our shit together and stop these “he was on a what and how big!!” issues from occurring – accident or not.


BTW: I believe the Dutch implementation of WingLoading opregs only applies to a new [for you] canopy.


Blues Benno

[Pendejo 0]

Balance person freedom vs the collective. The classic [bad?] example is seatbelt laws.
------------------------------------------------------------
The difference here is that cars already had seatbelts in them. A better example might be having a drivers license. The problem is coming up with something that is workable yet doesn't have a lot (what ever level is deemed acceptable) of fallout in the jumper base.
------------------------------------------------------------

An easy call for the DZSO on a small DZ that knows and has watched the individual. Now what does the poor DZSO do at a boogie where there are international jumpers on gear they might not have even see before?
------------------------------------------------------------
Or just a visiting jumper on a busy day at a mid-sized DZ.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly it seems some can't listen and don't want to learn or will even lie to the DZSO. There is a not insignificant danger that non skydiving bodies (i.e FAA/CASA) regulate WL for us - If we can't get our shit together and stop these “he was on a what and how big!!” issues from occurring – accident or not.
------------------------------------------------------------
I agree.
------------------------------------------------------------

BTW: I believe the Dutch implementation of WingLoading opregs only applies to a new [for you] canopy.
------------------------------------------------------------
That would be a good place to start... But it won't help the immediate problem (but we do have to start somewhere.)

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[Designer 0]

Ya'all make very good points!It's possible that a modified training program early on is the answer?There is still the day when you do everything right and still things go wrong.Some better judgment choices will always be part of the sport.Wing loading guidelines only work for the general masses.I will make sure to stay between 1.1 and 1.3 because I've seen what happens at 2.0+!I certainly don't wanna tell a D-license holder that he or she "Can't" jump the newest thing out there.We have to test the technology,but like what everybody is saying.Do it the smart way!

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Hi

Is that right Squeak?

So who are you dumping in that category from WA?

regards

Steve

I don't beleive I "dumped" anyone into any catagory, other than to state that the DZ I jump at does not fall into this catagory.

My assertion that someDZ see fun jumpers as just fill money is a general assertion based on some places I've visited.
and no I'm not about to list the one I beleive to be this way

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?