BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread)

[billvon 2,396]

This is a continuation of a thread from the Incidents forum.

The issue that it evolved to was - should we institute a canopy loading BSR? Several of us proposed such a BSR a while back, in a proposal that included mandatory education, wing loading limits based on licenses and a way to "test out" of the limitation if you could prove you were good enough.

Several people have proposed other ways of doing it, and many are opposed to any regulation at all. (all to introduce the topic.)

[AggieDave 6]

This has been hashed out in a number of BSR wingloading threads, I think there's been atleast 5 in the past year.

The wingloading with the ability to test out has been the most practical suggestion to date.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kelpdiver 2]

From the "low turn into asphalt" thread on incidents...Pash asked if there were *any* negative impacts with possible WL related changes.

Quote

I asked for a negative and I suppose you gave me one! Yeah it's expensive. I spent north of 3 with all the beer and whatnot. This problem with "entry" costs wouldn't apply to the wl suggestion here and in Derek's thread because this level of skydiver (less than A holder) is generally not the one looking to downsize to hp.
...
Do dz's rent smaller canopies for less than the larger ones? I really thought this was about buying hp canopies, not renting. My gear store would never rent something to me that put me at a WL of 1.4:1.

Pash, the W/L proposals aren't just about the obvious dangers like a 300jumper on a 1.8 load, or a 200jumper on a 1.45 Stilletto. Brian Germain's WL never exceed chart is often cited, that starts at a limit of 1.0 for < 100jumps, increasing .1 for every hundred. (also subtracts for < 150, or for altitude).

It's pretty typical for a first rig to have a main in the 1.0 to 1.1 range. Gear shop operators here who have participated in these discussions don't believe that to be a big risk. If that 1.0 line was held, there would be a slight change in behavior.

Proposals also hint at increased canopy training requirements, which would touch the bottom line in some fashion.

And as we were talking about the bigger guys...I run 210-220 over this past year. Translating to an exit weight of 245-255, right at the normal max of 254. The ideal size for me has been a ZP 230, at sea level. 210 is right over the edge of ok for me - I'd want to be at 205lbs or better.

I've had some trouble visiting DZs and renting:
Hollister- has Falcon 215, Spectre 210. Often with no RSL, guarantees won't be used by AFF students.
Lodi - Tri 220. Had a 260, but unfortunately was in that in air collision the week prior. PIA says this is 239, so maybe not so bad. I liked it enough to buy it.
Elsinore - Spectre 210 is biggest for gear shop, plus altitude concerns there. I found the envelope that weekend.
Perris - I think 230 is top for Square1.
Skydance - was ok, but early on was competing for 1 of 2 student class 265s. Gear shop has 2 more sporting 230s (fusion and omni), which I now have been using.
Byron might top out at 210, but I've had such bad luck with weather there, 3 unjumpable days.

So if we mandate a 1.0 limit, either the rental options need to improve, or 6'ers are going to have to make compromises on time or gear or spend more money on a 260 that they use for a limited time. Clearly that's a negative consequence, again then you decide the value return. I'd agree that by the time the person is at 200 jumps, the 1.2 threshold isn't very onerous - I suspect they would wait till 300 or 400 to go to the next canopy.

Quote

I didn't blink when I spent $3k+ in 3 months. The 1,000+ jump skydivers commenting on this thread didn't get there overnight. They aren't talking about a WL BSR because one person ate it. They have been around long enough to see it happen over and over again. Maybe they see a pattern.

That 3000 is a lot dearer for some jumpers than others.

They may see a pattern, but if so it's from selective vision of the incidents. A pretty big chunk of the deaths come from people with over 1000 jumps too. I suspect every DZ has a list of guys who are expected to die. The vast majority don't. There's definitely a correlation, but it's not so strong as 200 jumps and 1.45WL = broken leg by March.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Why should it only be necessary for a new guy to prove he can meet that requirement to by pass the firm line?

Because it would be unfair to yank a guy out from under his current canopy and make him buy a new one. Just likek it would have been unfair to yank a guys "D" once it went to 500 jumps if he had 300,or make a 19 year old not be allowed to drink.

Still raising the Drinking age was a good idea don't you think?

When a given state raised the drinking limit, they didn't say, you must be 21 to drink. Everyone born between 1967 and 1970 is exempt. They said, as of 3 years from now, the drinking age is 21. I know there's a little bit of subterfuge in that...

I'm proposing exactly the same thing. As of July 1, 2006 (give people in winter states the spring), everyone must be in compliance with the new WL BSR. If they're currently overloaded, they can jump their way clear, they can drop weight, they can change canopies, or they can prove themselves capable with the skills test.

Hardly unfair. People have 17 months to break their legs on unsafe canpies. If they're jumping engouh to be safe on such an aggressive choice, they'll collect the jump numbers.

Also prevents a run on VX90s the moth before the change takes effect.

Quote

Don't know all the things, but it does not matter...you said you would not revoke a guys "D", so why woudl you want to make them buy a new canopy?

Because no one is crashing and dying because they got their D with the easier 200 jump requirement. But lots of guys with 200-500 jumps are vunerable with their current canopy and need to be saved (at least according to you all). You would abandon them in the name of expediancy.

[pash 0]

Quote

It's pretty typical for a first rig to have a main in the 1.0 to 1.1 range. Gear shop operators here who have participated in these discussions don't believe that to be a big risk. If that 1.0 line was held, there would be a slight change in behavior.

I see where you're coming from now. However, if my math is correct aren't you wingloading at 1.08? Again, if the math is right, I wonder if some of the more experienced jumpers here would consider that aggressive? From what I've read it seems like they're complaining of us lowbies (even with a couple hundred jumps more than us) jumping an aggressively loaded canopy and attempting a hp landing.

As it is right now, I could do a recurrency jump, go out and buy a hp canopy jump it quietly and land it LOUDLY. I see that there is no real way to completely stop behavior like that - even thought it's an extreme example - but to train us from very early on, a responsible progression, could certainly help reduce the number of incidents that started this thread.

In reality, this could quite possibly have a positive financial impact for the DZ's. If it's known that certain WL's are prohibited at certain demonstrated proficiencies, they've helped their liability by making it public and keeping a watchful eye. Maybe not to those that have been around just long enough to know how to bend the rules, but more of a benefit for those people starting from jump one after a BSR is implemented. Those people would know right from wrong from jump.

Quote

Proposals also hint at increased canopy training requirements, which would touch the bottom line in some fashion.

Could touch on the bottom line a little more if outside forces decide for an even stricter regulation. Plus, what about the fees for these classes? That would help the DZ. Wouldn't fewer skydivers at a higher level of competency be a good thing - specific to high WL and hp landings? Too Jerry McGuire? Who's coming with me?

Quote

And as we were talking about the bigger guys...I run 210-220 over this past year. Translating to an exit weight of 245-255, right at the normal max of 254. The ideal size for me has been a ZP 230, at sea level. 210 is right over the edge of ok for me - I'd want to be at 205lbs or better.

I've had some trouble visiting DZs and renting:
Hollister- has Falcon 215, Spectre 210. Often with no RSL, guarantees won't be used by AFF students.
Lodi - Tri 220. Had a 260, but unfortunately was in that in air collision the week prior. PIA says this is 239, so maybe not so bad. I liked it enough to buy it.
Elsinore - Spectre 210 is biggest for gear shop, plus altitude concerns there. I found the envelope that weekend.
Perris - I think 230 is top for Square1.
Skydance - was ok, but early on was competing for 1 of 2 student class 265s. Gear shop has 2 more sporting 230s (fusion and omni), which I now have been using.
Byron might top out at 210, but I've had such bad luck with weather there, 3 unjumpable days.

This is where I really empathize with you. I'm hoping proponents for this BSR could identify a solution to this problem. How aggressive is a 1.08 WL?

Quote

That 3000 is a lot dearer for some jumpers than others.

Yeah I understand. It was dear to me too but I didn't blink because it was the best use for that kind of money that I've ever put that kind of money into! I would never jeopardize my own safety and the SAFETY OF OTHERS because of money. Again, I see the rental problem but there's no way I'm WL'ing 1.4:1 for any kind of money at my experience level. (really not even a 1.2:1).

Quote

They may see a pattern, but if so it's from selective vision of the incidents. A pretty big chunk of the deaths come from people with over 1000 jumps too.

And what if an escalated level of training and education was required? Would that number be reduced? I don't know but it would certainly reduce the number of those with fewer jumps!

Again, I can understand your point considering how it affects you personally. I cannot however see how this would negatively impact the skydiving community as a whole. Would anyone care to tell me if the 239 he bought would be usable under any suggested BSR based on average exit weight of 250?

Finally, and more to the point: are you trying hp landings currently? Because the way I see it, it's those that want to downsize to an aggressive WL ratio that also want the hp landings.

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

Because the way I see it, it's those that want to downsize to an aggressive WL ratio that also want the hp landings.

Actually, I find it quite interesting, and it seems I have heard a lot lately, jumpers defending their High WL (and/or HP canopy choice) conversely with statements like: "yeah, but even at 1.5(+):1 I am 'safe' because I am not either hook turning or performing HP landings".

This is strictly an anecdotal observation, but seems somewhat contradictory, wouldn't you say? How would you also then quantify that?

Only conclusion that I am able to come to, no matter which side of the equation these jumpers are coming down on (in "justifying" their positions) is that they (obviously, and clearly) just don't understand what it is they are getting into! NOT a good situation (or indication) IMHO either way you look at it.

Again, just yet another recent anomally that I have OBSERVED. I really am starting to more seriously wonder if some sort or variation of WL BSR just might in fact, be needed. ...Dunno. My "jury" is still out on that one, and it seems the more I read, the MORE I hear, still even the more ...I just dunno!

-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[pash 0]

Quote

Actually, I find it quite interesting, and it seems I have heard a lot lately, jumpers defending their High WL (and/or HP canopy choice) conversely with statements like: "yeah, but even at 1.5(+):1 I am 'safe' because I am not either hook turning or performing HP landings".

This is strictly an anecdotal observation, but seems somewhat contradictory, wouldn't you say? How would you also then quantify that?

Point taken - you can see I haven't been around that long - nonetheless, I appreciate the opportunity to have some dialogue with this interesting and important topic (especially as one that this BSR suggestion would affect).

I'm just now realizing that WL'ing is not everything after reading this and some related threads. Up until now, I thought a WL of 1.1:1 on a 97 was just a WL issue. I now see that different canopies fly in different ways REGARDLESS of WL.

I think the hp landing could be sort of "tacked on" to the WL BSR because it seems that's the way a lot of people end up hitting hard. I haven't been around long enough to hear anyone talk about a high WL but still flying a square pattern. Thinking about it, a pure WL would be good but the hooking and swooping should be a consideration while we're at it.

I've been to exactly 2 dz's. Am I correct in thinking some dz's have signs prohibiting hook turns? I wonder how popular those are? (I really mean that question by the way - I don't know).

I have witnessed a lot of hook turns and swooping and really REALLY enjoyed what I saw. I admire it like an artist admires something beautiful. It would be another story to have someone with no skills attempt to forge the mona lisa.

As a newbie I think the downsize issue goes hand-in-hand with the hp landings in spirit.

Quote

Only conclusion that I am able to come to, no matter which side of the equation these jumpers are coming down on (in "justifying" their positions) is that they (obviously, and clearly) just don't understand what it is they are getting into! NOT a good situation (or indication) IMHO either way you look at it.

Agreed. Let's all help limit this by putting pen to paper before someone else does. From my angle, I have no problem with making an effort to meet the goals set before me in the name of safety. This doesn't seem to be a community that caprisciously hands down rules. And we can see what's in our best interest better than those that CAN make the rules for us.

[pash 0]

Hi Dave,

Do you have a link to the one that suggests WL requirement w/ ability to test out? Curious as to what WL requirement was on that vs. Derek's and what "test out" was specifically.

thx,
j

[AggieDave 6]

I can't remember the specific thread, feel free to search if you like.

Basically the charts were like those suggested by Brian Germain for jump numbers and wingloading and the test out was similar to BillVon's downsize list. It could be administered by an S&TA, if I remember correctly.

Germain's WL suggestions were as followed:

0-100 >=1.0
100-200 1.1
200-300 1.2
300-400 1.3

And so forth, pretty straight forward really.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Ron 7]

Quote

When a given state raised the drinking limit, they didn't say, you must be 21 to drink. Everyone born between 1967 and 1970 is exempt. They said, as of 3 years from now, the drinking age is 21. I know there's a little bit of subterfuge in that...

I'm proposing exactly the same thing. As of July 1, 2006 (give people in winter states the spring), everyone must be in compliance with the new WL BSR. If they're currently overloaded, they can jump their way clear, they can drop weight, they can change canopies, or they can prove themselves capable with the skills test.

No, its not the same. The 20 year old didn't have to do anything to "pass". The 17 year old did.

Thats what I am saying.

Quote

Also prevents a run on VX90s the moth before the change takes effect.

Like I said...To late for me. (I am 18 when the law was passed). But the new guys will be affected. If you try to get something like this WO a "Grandfather" clause...It will not pass. sad but true. I however will do any test you want me to do.

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

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

So if we mandate a 1.0 limit, either the rental options need to improve, or 6'ers are going to have to make compromises on time or gear or spend more money on a 260 that they use for a limited time. Clearly that's a negative consequence, again then you decide the value return. I'd agree that by the time the person is at 200 jumps, the 1.2 threshold isn't very onerous - I suspect they would wait till 300 or 400 to go to the next canopy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I didn't blink when I spent $3k+ in 3 months. The 1,000+ jump skydivers commenting on this thread didn't get there overnight. They aren't talking about a WL BSR because one person ate it. They have been around long enough to see it happen over and over again. Maybe they see a pattern.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That 3000 is a lot dearer for some jumpers than others.

Money should never be opposite saftey. Period.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[diablopilot 2]

Hwy bill. Notice something about the anti BSR peeps? A good majority of them are low jump numbers and/or non instructional rating holders. Guess they've never had to scrape one of their students off the ground.

Death is easy. Those that get fucked up for life are the hard ones to deal with. After they are "well" again, their shatterd lives still have to be put back together.

Listen to the screams of someone in agony with a powdered lower body in the landing area. Talk to someone about the pain of taking a shit with a broken pelvis. Ask someone about the inconvinence, pain, and embarrassment of a colostamy bag. Hold someone's hand as they die.

Then tell me something doesn't need to be done. Instructors and DZO's need teeth to back them up.

Why do fewer people pull below 2 grand than they did in the 80's? Because there is a BSR. Why do students not die from cutaway/no reserve pull anymore? Because there is an RSL/AAD BSR.

Figure it out.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Listen to the screams of someone in agony with a powdered lower body in the landing area. Talk to someone about the pain of taking a shit with a broken pelvis. Ask someone about the inconvinence, pain, and embarrassment of a colostamy bag. Hold someone's hand as they die.

Hey JP,

Part of the problem is the ones you mentioned could give a shit less about someone else. To the ones you mentioned in your first paragraph its all about "me". They feel they should not have to earn anything, everything is their right.

Fuck it, let Darwin have them. The deserve each other.

I am sick and tired of debating death with some punk who can't find his ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[parachutist 1]

Quote

Hwy bill. Notice something about the anti BSR peeps? A good majority of them are low jump numbers and/or non instructional rating holders. Guess they've never had to scrape one of their students off the ground.

I watched the guy hit the pavement last weekend: I had just spent a few hours with 2 students teaching them most of their first jump course for AFF. We were taking a break, standing out on the tarmac watching landings, then *thud*. Approx. 1 hour before this I had been explaining to the students "the most common cause for injury in this sport today is turns at low altitude".

Pro WL BSR folks are barking up the wrong tree in their attempt to prevent these landing injuries. People who make hard turns at low altitude (via riser or toggle) have much more potential for injury than those who fly the canopy straight in, no matter what the wing loading. The WL is not causing the broken bones... low turns are causing the broken bones & fatalties.

I ask my students: "Suppose you're landing off the airport in a cow field... at 50 feet above the ground suddenly you notice there's a barbed wire fence in front of you... What do you do?" Answer: Continue on your current path. It's better to run into that fence and deal with the cuts/bruises than to turn at low altitude trying to avoid it, finding yourself in ambulance because you made a low turn.

Jumpers need a healthy fear of turns at low altitude instead of new WL restrictions. No panic turns. No HP turns until they've passed a training course.

Chris

[stratostar 5]

I would have to agree with sparky.
As I grew up on a dz and when I started jumping everyone looked up to the jumpers who had been in the sport for a long time, even if they only had a by todays standards low jump numbers, after all making 200 to 300 jumps a year on rounds was a lot and hard on your body, point is it was the years of experience that mattered not jump numbers.
But today I see "the me generation" comming in to the sport
with a know it all attitude and showing very little respect for someone like sparky and what he would have to say because he don't jump some pocket rocket and swoop a football field with no hands looking backwards or laying on his belly, and seeing how he don't fly that way or do freeflying then he's NOT COOL!
I have a very good friend that has been jumping for 50 years
and at age 70 now jumps just as hard or harder then most 25 year old's. (he can fly circles around them too) This guy is a master rigger,instructor for the last 30+ years, when someone like this tells the "new crowd" what their doing is wrong,(rigging or flying, canopy control, downsizing ect) they all blow him off and act as if he is just talking shit and telling them what to do, with this attitude being backed up by some of the newer hot shot crowd instructors.
Back in the day when someone like a sparky came up and told you something you listened to what the hell they had to say
and took it all in because it might save your ass, these guys have been there and seen most of all of it before.
There is a reason guys like sparky have been able to stay in the sport for 30 years or longer and stay alive and keep walking up right.
If Bill Booth walked up to you and pointed at your rig and said your fucking up and are going to die if you don't change your ways, you would change! But to blow off some because their not someone who is as well known as Bill Booth is just foolish!
We've seen them come and seen them go (some leave in bodybags) with their rush to be joe cool hot shit of the sky.
Maybe I'm just old school, but the ones I look up to and hope to be like are the guys like sparky and my 70 year old friend, I would like to have as many years in the sport as they do and to have done as many jumps as possable and live to tell the storys.There are a whole bunch of punk ass kids today who need to wake up before they wake up dead!
There is no real reason anyone needs to jump at a high wingloading or needs to land as fast or faster then a cessna 182, it may be fun yes but what real need is there to do so
with only a few hundred jumps other then to be cool!
Do we really need a BSR or do people just need to pull their heads out of their ass?

~

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[obelixtim 100]

I'd have to agree....one of these tossers was telling me I was a softcock because I couldn't handle seeing a little bit of blood and guts on the DZ.....and because I'd taken 30 years to get 4000 odd jumps I was too old and too slow......

The arrogance is breathtaking.....

But he's been around all of 2 years and knows it all....even snapped a femur already...(I had to laugh)...But even that hasn't knocked the bullshit out of him....

I guess we've all worked too hard to make jumping too easy for these guys......so its all our own fault.....

But I do get a kick out of shooting them full of holes when they screw up.....

Ego crushing.......a great sport....

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[Ron 7]

I am actually pretty sick of it. When I started (11 years, so Not that long) anyone with more jumps/experience than me was listened to.

Today, these new "know it alls" don't listen to ayone unless the advice they get is what they want.

I always figured that the first step in skydiving is to live so I can do it again....Keeping in those lines a guy with 4000 jumps knows more than me at 3300. So I tend to listen to those with experience.

These new fucksticks don't seem to get that.

They also seem to think respect is something people are supposed to given then, but they don't need to give to anyone else.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Pro WL BSR folks are barking up the wrong tree in their attempt to prevent these landing injuries. People who make hard turns at low altitude (via riser or toggle) have much more potential for injury than those who fly the canopy straight in, no matter what the wing loading.

You don't think higher WL's are more dangerous?

Derek

[freakbrother 0]

Quote

Quote

Pro WL BSR folks are barking up the wrong tree in their attempt to prevent these landing injuries. People who make hard turns at low altitude (via riser or toggle) have much more potential for injury than those who fly the canopy straight in, no matter what the wing loading.

You don't think higher WL's are more dangerous?

Derek

A wingloading, in and of itself, is neither safe nor dangerous.

A high wingloading combined with insufficient skill AND judgment is dangerous.

Jump numbers != skill
Jump numbers != judgment
skill != judgment

.
.
www.freak-brother.com

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Money should never be opposite saftey. Period.

That's a romantic way to put it, but it's still utterly impractical. Each one of us has to accept that at any given time he has X amount of dollars, and come to terms with how much safety he can afford and how much risk he's willing to accept.

To me, that some people are resistant to advice from people they ought to and probably do trust is a strong indicator of their will.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[pash 0]

As I worked my way through AFP and my A-Liscense, I noticed that there were times that I thought I did a "less than stellar" dive. My instructors and coaches for the most part always gave me positive feedback and I'm not 100% sure of this, but I believe that it may be common to praise students in the early stages in an effort to keep them in the sport.

I made it clear early on, however, that I had no ego to be bruised (when it came to this sport) and encouraged good, honest criticism of the dive.

I had an instructor tell me that he was committing a "cardinal sin" when he evaluated my first solo exit at 13.5k' as "weak" when my next jump was going to be the low solo. He asked that I do another high solo first. I am so thankful that he put aside any concern that a student couldn't take criticism. The next exit was awesome (in my solo opinion and in that of my instructor).

If there were some BSR, the "fucksticks" may not like it. It could, however, really help prevent a "fuckstick mill" because us newbies and those coming after us really wouldn't know the difference. It would be a plan in place that you must simply go through and that's that.

I think the idea that we're trying to save the lives of people who don't know how to save their own life and body is commendable. I have not heard an arguement from anyone that this wouldn't SAVE lives. I guess the crux of the argument is what form it would take.

I once heard that most deaths in skydiving could be attributed to someone attempting something beyond their skill level. What would be the problem in formally evaluating and documenting someone's skill level before allowing them to go wild with anything they want?

I can differentiate the experienced skydivers from the government and big brother. They are black and white. No government official has ever asked me to practice tracking dives with them, but an Australian National Freefly Champion has. He truly had my well-being in mind. "Follow the money" - we've all heard it. What financial incentive would a 1,000+ skydiver have in recommending this plan?

I DON'T CARE if it costs lowbies more money. Be the first to say you went through the program. Take some pride in it.

It's as honest a plan as there is and I'm happy to be around to see it discussed. I don't think we have to worry that it's a "Patriot Act" in disguise. Prove you can do it THEN do it. If you're breaking femurs or leaving this world behind then you took it too fast.

[pash 0]

Quote

Money should never be opposite saftey. Period.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

That's a romantic way to put it, but it's still utterly impractical. Each one of us has to accept that at any given time he has X amount of dollars, and come to terms with how much safety he can afford and how much risk he's willing to accept.

To me, that some people are resistant to advice from people they ought to and probably do trust is a strong indicator of their will.

nathaniel

Brakes cost money. If I don't have them I don't drive. It cost me money and time to get my driver's liscence. In 1920 I suppose anyone could drive.

There was a requirement for me to prove a lot in skydiving before I was afforded the LUXURY of skydiving by myself and with my friends. Just because I am closer to the ground doesn't mean I am afforded the LUXURY of hooking it in with a high WL. Let me gradually prove to you that I can first.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

A wingloading, in and of itself, is neither safe nor dangerous.

A high wingloading combined with insufficient skill AND judgment is dangerous.

I disagree. What you are saying is that with increase skill and experience a higher WL isn't any more dangerous. But what we are talking about is a fixed experience level, i.e. 100/200/300/400, etc jumps and WL. Given someone with 100 jumps, a higher WL is more dangerous. Once they accrue more jumps and experience, that danger level will come back down, but initially, there is an increase is the risk level.

Increasing WL increases risk, in and of itself. A jumper with 100 jumps at 1:1 is safer than a jumper 1 with 100 jumps at 2:1, all other things being equal.

That is why the proposals tie in # jumps to WL. No proposal are so simplistic in that leaves out jump #'s and focuses entirely WL. In fact the proposal I support and I think every other WL BSR proposal includes a max WL for jump # experience, mandatory education/training, and an option to demonstrate their superior abilities in order to exceed the max WL for their jump #'s. This is because the higher the WL, the higher the risk factor, not every jumper should be held to the limit if they can demonstrate they can handle a higher WL, and w/o education and training the jumper can simply accrue jumps w/o learning anything and go to higher WL’s. Will any WL BSR and education/training proposal stop low-turn injuries and fatalities? No, of course not. It will prevent a lot of them and lessen the extent of injuries that do happen though. This is because, as you said, as a jumper gains more experience, they are able to handle the higher WL’s. Unfortunately, right now, they are downsizing faster than they are gaining experience and don’t have the experience to recognize the level of risk they are subjecting themselves to.

Allowing a jumper with 100 jumps to fly a canopy loaded at 2:1 puts that jumper at a very high risk. You cannot say WL is a major risk factor.

Derek

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Brakes cost money.

Brakes are an excellent example, because you don't just have brakes or not have brakes (on cars, anyway). Well, you do, but that's not the whole story.

Newer brakes, generally, are safer than older brakes. But you don't have to replace your brakes when the dealer / manufacturer suggests, and lots of people don't. People get to decide when they replace their brakes depending on their desire for safety and how much they're willing to spend.

Careful with the analogy, tho.

The analogy breaks down, because, among other things, the capability of a set of brakes is a mechanical contraption that is easily measured.

While you are allowed to drive without brakes in some states (on certain historical vehicles, and probably not on highways), generally one can't test out of having brakes, no matter how many hours or cars one has driven.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[pash 0]

Quote

Newer brakes, generally, are safer than older brakes. But you don't have to replace your brakes when the dealer / manufacturer suggests, and lots of people don't. People get to decide when they replace their brakes depending on their desire for safety and how much they're willing to spend.

These are not people I would want on the road with me.

Quote

The analogy breaks down, because, among other things, the capability of a set of brakes is a mechanical contraption that is easily measured.

So is a WL BSR. Why is this not agreed upon as EASILY MEASURED? Either you can demonstrate or you cannot.

Quote

While you are allowed to drive without brakes in some states (on certain historical vehicles, and probably not on highways), generally one can't test out of having brakes, no matter how many hours or cars one has driven.

this would be an excellent argument you make. Hence the "grandfather clause."

For the "brand-new" Toyota-owning jumpers out there - brakes wouldn't be an option - just a requirement. What's wrong with that requirement?