BSR for canopy loading (from low turn incident thread)

[billvon 2,400]

>"Higher performance" canopies are more fun to fly and
> beginner-intermediate jumpers are permitted to have fun too, not just
>the skygods or self-appointed canopy police (some of whom have already
> made insane downsizing judgement calls I'd never make and bounced).

I agree. On the other hand, if you can't have fun with a canopy loaded at 1.2 to 1, you need more education, not a smaller (or more elliptical) canopy. Periodically, a good canopy pilot will take up a big Spectre and get better surfs out of it than the newer jumpers on their 1.4 loaded Crossfires. It's always fun to watch their reactions as the canopy they considered a boat comes screaming across the grass.

>Arguments in favor of additional restrictions are full of untested
> assumptions like people who downsize are the ones doing the hook
> turns . . .

?? No it's not. Indeed, canopy loading restrictions would have far more effect on people who claim "I will never hookturn!" because they're the ones getting bent and broken when they have to turn low - and don't know how.

>Even if some of these assumptions were true the outcome of a wing
> loading chart for example may be counter productive, if someone is
> getting bored with their 1.0 loaded canopy are they more likely or less
> to try a low level turn?

More likely! And that's EXACTLY what such regulations will encourage. People will learn to flat turn their Spectre 150 instead of coming in straight all the time, terrified of turning their Vengeance 107. (They're not turning them, of course, because they are 'being safe.')

What's killing people is not the canopy or the loading. It is the lack of experience/education/training on the part of the canopy pilot. The most basic part of any canopy loading restriction is the required education that goes along with it. It is the education, not the wing loading BSR's, that will save lives. The BSR just forces you to get it by keeping you at lower loadings until you do.

>Most people bounce because they intentionally turn low and screw up.
> You can do that on any canopy and have a bad day and you're more
> likely to do it if you're not getting what you want from the canopy
> you're flying because some canopy nazi has taken the fun from an
> important part of your chosen sport.

If there are jumpers out there who are that stupid, then at least they will hit the ground under a Pilot 150 instead of a Xaos 98 - and the result will be dealing with a broken leg instead of dealing with living without the use of their arms or legs.

[billvon 2,400]

>and if you did it to my face, I'd punch you in the mouth......

Your one warning. No threats of ANY kind.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Ah....the ignorance of the selfish generation......me me me me me.....its all about self.....

Listen up mate.....most people bounce on good canopies because they do stupid things low down without leaving themselves any margin for error.....

.

You listen up, you're not my mate, especially not with comments like that and your threats (that speak volumes), spare me the ad hominem about my selfishness, I'm not imposing my opinion in an attempt to restrict your actions, you are.

You need to read my quote in the context of saying "I can play that game too" I wouldn't disagree with your second observation but that includes stupid things like intentional low turns.

If someone's going to impose new training requirements for stuff I was already training for during AFF then they need to back it up with more than this.

I have a right to argue against someone imposing inflexible restrictions on me because of someone else's poor judgement, lack of skill or sheer stupidity. It's not just about me, me, me, it's about all the other jumpers that have to tollerate new restrictions imposed based on guesswork, opinion and the nannying attitude of people some of whom have downsized or flown far more recklessly than anything I've done or ever intend to.

I follow the advice of experiend jumpers, DZ staff and instructors when it comes to downsizing, this is not about me just wanting to do whatever the hell I like despite your attempts to represent this as such.

If all you do is attack any dissenting voices from the people the proposed rules affect the most then I guess you're destined for unanimous agreement, so continue to pat yourselves on the back and congratulate eachother about what a wonderful job you're doing for safety.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

"Higher performance" canopies are more fun to fly and beginner-intermediate jumpers are permitted to have fun too, not just the skygods or self-appointed canopy police (some of whom have already made insane downsizing judgement calls I'd never make and bounced). (quote)

Do you want to buy my stiletto 107 it's for sale cheap
should be a lot of fun for you....

~

...fun right down to the last few feet.

Not quite what I had in mind, my current wing loading is < 1.2 on a docile 7 cell. The proposed wingloading table would prevent me jumping the canopy tomorrow that I've already got about 100 jumps on. I've never had anything I didn't expect from my current canopy, it's very predictable and I've had to turn it low due to traffic more than once, I feel very safe with this canopy and always have.

[crewkeith 0]

im sure everyones read the little tag on your canopy. why arent manufactures recomendations turned to requirements??? then liscense people according to what the little tag says. i think pd has 4 classes on their canopys. some one might look to see what they are exactly. i think it is student, novice, advanced, and expert. there are your liscenses and wingloadings to go with them.and it kinda takes out the canopy type a little. just spitballing here so just a thought


.

The skies are no longer safe

I'm back

[crotalus01 0]

Quote

Quote

***never had a standup landing until i jumped that canopy

This is a function of your training, as well as the canopies you had been previously jumping, and not related to WL. If your student canopies were clapped out F-111 (like mnay student canopies), you would be hard pressed to have a nice landing on them. If you were given a Sabre 210 (as opposed to your 190) I'm sure that would have wroked just fine for you as well.

i agree completely. actually it was going from a hybrid 210 where i could not feel the flare to zpo where the flare is obvious. my point was that the 190 was recommended to me by everyone i jump with. i am obviously w/l at over the conventional wisdom presented here (1.2:1). everyone progresses through the myriad of skills involved at a different pace. i am not against a w/l BSR necessarilly, but it should definitely be one that you can test out of.

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

[chrisgr 0]

It sounds like you have a good handle on your current canopy and you may be able to demonstrate the survival skills required to progress to another canopy.

The proposed w/l table will NOT prevent you from jumping a canopy that you can safely fly.

Again … the proposals recommend that a qualified instructor watches and evaluates your CC skills and ‘discusses your safety choices and thought processes’. If you can demonstrate your skills and pass the evaluation, you can fly your canopy of choice.

Did your AFF training include all of the skills on Bill’s list?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=47

[billvon 2,400]

> im sure everyones read the little tag on your canopy.

You think so, eh? Most people never read the manuals that come with their rigs or reserves. No one I have seen rent gear at Perris ever looks at the data panel on the mains they rent. Someone might do it, but they are very much in the minority if they do.

>why arent manufactures recomendations turned to requirements???

What do you mean? All canopy manufacturers have some sort of requirement, usually vauge. PD goes by student-novice-beginner-intermediate-advanced-expert. Hiper just has min/max loadings. Aerodyne goes by student-intermediate-advanced. There are no criteria listed. A new jumper could say "Well, I've never fallen down in 100 jumps, so I must be an expert."

>there are your liscenses and wingloadings to go with them.and it kinda
>takes out the canopy type a little. just spitballing here so just a thought

Well, the problem there is that such a system would prevent a novice from buying a Pilot 168 loaded at 1.3 to 1 but would be OK with a Blade 88, since you are within the legal loading (per Hiper) as long as your exit weight is under 220 lbs. There's no standardization in the system. It's even worse than the "how-we-measure-canopy-size" problem, because there ARE no standards for canopy training now. Implementing a USPA canopy coach rating (with syllabus and standards) could help change that.

[stratostar 5]

That is good, cause I wouldn't sell it to you with the jump numbers you have right now, that would irrespondsible of me to do so. Or any other gear dealer to do so. All though some would, that don't make it the right thing to do!

~

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

[dorbie 0]

Quote

It sounds like you have a good handle on your current canopy and you may be able to demonstrate the survival skills required to progress to another canopy.

The proposed w/l table will NOT prevent you from jumping a canopy that you can safely fly.

Again … the proposals recommend that a qualified instructor watches and evaluates your CC skills and ‘discusses your safety choices and thought processes’. If you can demonstrate your skills and pass the evaluation, you can fly your canopy of choice.

Did your AFF training include all of the skills on Bill’s list?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=47

OK that sounds a lot better, there's a difference between wing loading restrictions that prevent obviously reckless choices and those that seem conservative and that colors my view here. Since it seems inevitable that any table will eventually become the WL ceiling at some DZs it causes me concern, and not really for my ability to jump, by the time this evolves into a BSR I will probably have made many more jumps, however meeting the requirements personally doesn't make me any more inclined to approve the measure if it's seen as a hard ceiling for other jumpers.

I didn't make my canopy choice without discussing it with instructors and one DZO who saw me jump and saw my log book and it did have an influence.

w.r.t. the list, a few not most (and the crosswind landing wasn't exactly planned, that was an aborted turn to final when I got myself too low after a bad spot, it was something I was trained to do instead of a low turn onto final fortunately I remembered it on my second(?) jump), some I won't do (uphill landing, why invite the risk, I'll take the risk if/when I'm forced to) and at least one is a profficiency test for something AFF teaches.

[crewkeith 0]

they are kinda recommendations arent they?? make them mandatory limits. PD has weights that go with classes. also they have n/r in there too. why dont we make canopy licenses that correspond with those limits, the ones printed on the canopy. make the manufactures, the people that did the r&d on the canopy, post the limits of the caonpy for each of the licenses?? and make people adhere to those limits. some one gets ready to move from novice to advanced make a test to do it. make them hit a target ten times. not just hit the peas but have a target to move around the dz. a lot of people fly landmarks. move the peas and they cant hit em to save their ass. make them get a 4 stack. not just go get pinned either, make them come on last. hell strap weight on their ass so they are at their next wingloading and have them go jump to see if they really like what they are about to go do.most of all make them get coaching. make it a freefall licence requirement. i drove the taxi from the landing area to the hangar for a year and a half just so i could watch people land. see what to do and not to do. it aint just the ones that get hurt or killed. there are a lot of scary jumpers out there that just use their canopy as a life boat. they are gonna be next. all they need is education. make scott miller's essentail skills course an A licence requirement. something along those lines i guess

The skies are no longer safe

I'm back

[bob.dino 0]

I think you may have missed one point of the proposed BSR. You can't fly a smaller, faster canopy until you've proven your ability. Once you've demonstrated your ability to the appropriate person, you're cleared to downsize.

So, the only additional hurdle that is being placed in your way is that you need to demonstrate the necessary survival skills before you downsize, rather than when you get into a tight spot under your smaller new canopy.

If you don't demonstrate that ability, you're restricted to the WNE chart.

[dorbie 0]

That makes things a lot more palatable, thanks for explaining.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Quote

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.

So in giving me a backhanding compliment about my debating ability, you suggested I only harped on the negatives. And yet, all you've done is bitch that low timers aren't qualified to talk. In short, nothing constructive at all, just sanctioned personal attacks. This approach has cowed many people into silence on this topic, but is hardly a form of leadership. I'm suppose to respect this?

And if your drive is based on intense personal experiences, rather than objective thinking, how are you different from the mom that wrote "Jumping Through Clouds?"

Don't put words in my mouth, I don't like the taste.

All you have done is complain and tear down any program that would impose some form of control. And if your profile is correct, you are not qualified to speak on the subject.

I am not trying to be yours or anyones leader, you can't lead a gaggle. And you hardly seem cowed into silence.

I really don't give a rats ass what you respect. But there are people that are way ahead of where you are trying to come up with a workable plan to keep people from dying under good canopies. They are doing this to help the sport, not to keep the newer jumper from realizing his dream of being a Swoop God. If he has the talent he will get there, if stupidity doesn't get him first.

As far as my drive, you wouldn't have a clue, so don't lose any sleep over it.

This says more about you then I ever could.

Real Name: Darwin's Buddy
Location: North America/United States/California
City: San Francisco
Email: No email entered.
Jump Profile
Home DZ: No home dropzone entered.
License: A 7
Number of Jumps: 49
Years in Sport: 9
Gear
Container: No container entered.
Main Canopy: No main entered.
Reserve Canopy: No reserve entered.
AAD: No AAD entered.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[RippedCord 0]

Doesn't this argument eventually boil down to where we draw the line on how many laws/rules we want to create to protect people from themselves?

(Enough so that the sport looks attractive to new people and so that you don't get shut down by the rest of society, and not so much that you completely absolve people from their own responsibility to themselves.)

My two cents: 'no' to a BSR on canopy loading.

AMDG

[billvon 2,400]

>why dont we make canopy licenses that correspond with those
>limits, the ones printed on the canopy.

Because then you would have to allow a novice jumper to jump a Blade 88 but not a Pilot 168 (if you go by canopy manufacturer's recommendations, that is.) That's nuts, and would result in us enforcing bad decisions.

We could do this if we could get all mfrs to agree on basic guidelines for their canopies. That's a little tough, since some mfrs are in (for example) germany, but you could have a 'default' list that applies if the manufacturer either doesn't want to do it or has insane limits for their gear.

>some one gets ready to move from novice to advanced make a
>test to do it. make them hit a target ten times. not just hit the peas
> but have a target to move around the dz. a lot of people fly
>landmarks. move the peas and they cant hit em to save their ass.
> make them get a 4 stack. not just go get pinned either, make them
> come on last. hell strap weight on their ass so they are at their next
> wingloading and have them go jump to see if they really like what
> they are about to go do.most of all make them get coaching.

All good ideas, and similar to the proposal we sent to USPA. Basically it added canopy skill requirements to each license, added a wingloading restriction to each license, then allow people to 'test out' of the restrictions by:

1. demonstrating proficiency in front of a canopy coach or S+TA

2. taking an approved canopy control class.

> all they need is education. make scott miller's essentail skills course
> an A licence requirement. something along those lines i guess

Sure, although I would do some at the A license, some more at the B license etc.

[parachutist 1]

Quote

Quote

Ah, but people who CAN turn low have a much lower potential for injury. A very large percentage of injuries occur to people who never hook turn (and thus don't know how) who try to turn low. Someone who had a little flat-turn education is not at as much rish.

Teach them from the start to be afraid of low turns. I was an example of an extreme downsizer at too few jumps, but a few rules kept me safe during landings: 1) No matter what may be going through your head, arms all the way up at 100 feet. 2) No more turns at this point.

These rules instilled me with fear of low turns and so whenever I was doing an approach and felt uneasy about it, I'd go to neutral: Arms all the way up, fly straight.... flare. Low turns came later. These rules got me safely through some extreme downsizing at low jump #'s with no broken bones. 1.9 WL at 400 (stiletto 120) and 2.3 WL at 550 (VX97)

Quote

> Answer: Continue on your current path.

Everyone tells students that. No one does it. It's like telling people to go to their reserve if they ever get low - they just won't do it unless they PRACTICE it.

Have you tried to teach someone who started this sport doing tandem progression how to do a PLF? The first thing people learn is ingrained into them. No matter how much you drill them on the ground about PLF'ing when they come in, at least half of them are gong to go back to their first basic training when actually landing: Feet up, land on butt.

So yes, you can teach someone to have more fear of low turns than of whatever they may see in front of them come landing time. You can train them that straight-in approaches are the way to safety and they will soak it in, if you teach it from the beginning.

Eventually they should learn more about low turns during landings... but their base training should be - down to 100 ft? Arms up and prepare for landing. This is a good neutral

Quote

If anything, prohibiting people from practicing low turns will lead to less educated jumpers and therefore more fatalities from people turning too low without knowing how.

Low-timers have no business doing low turns. Make them fear the low turn from their first training and they will only approach such turns when they are confident of the outcome... thinking three steps ahead before committing to it. Plan the approach so that there are no surprises at the last minute (Much like planning to avoid being in the corner)

[billvon 2,400]

>Teach them from the start to be afraid of low turns.

I believe this fear kills a lot of people. It's like telling a new driver that if someone cuts in front of them, take your hands off the wheel and your foot off the brake and let the airbags fire. It goes against everything else they have learned.

The problem, I believe, is not that jumpers turn too low in and of itself. It is that they make the wrong kind of turn too low. I can turn 90 degrees at 50 feet and pull off a decent landing - I might not stand it up but I won't break anything. It took a lot of practice to do that on a small canopy, but it's come in useful more than once. That is the skill we need to be teaching new jumpers - not "don't avoid collisions" but "here's how to turn to avoid a collision."

>These rules got me safely through some extreme downsizing at low
> jump #'s with no broken bones. 1.9 WL at 400 (stiletto 120) and
>2.3 WL at 550 (VX97)

I believe a lot of people don't learn survival skills like low turns because they downsize too quickly and are afraid of turning their canopy.

>but their base training should be - down to 100 ft? Arms up and
>prepare for landing. This is a good neutral.

For first jump students, I agree. Before you are "let loose" into the real world of unsupervised jumping, and without your telltale student canopy (which warns other people that you may not be able to avoid them) you have to learn low turns (IMO.)

>Low-timers have no business doing low turns. Make them fear the
> low turn from their first training and they will only approach such
> turns when they are confident of the outcome...

. . . or when their only option is turn or collide with someone. And on that day, if they have never practiced flat turns, they will probably wind up either dead (if they have downsized rapidly) or in the hospital (if they were smart enough to not downsize too fast.) If they have practiced them, they will turn and land with no problem.

I saw a really cool post one day from someone jumping a medium sized canopy (a Sabre 170 or something.) She was on final and realized that she was going to land in a barbed wire fence. She had read about flat turns and had tried them a few times, and she did one here, turning about 90 degrees at 100 feet. She avoided the fence but landed hard and sprained her ankle. That's the outcome we want when new jumpers find themselves in deep shit, flying downwind into a fence - a manuever that turns a fatality/serious injury into a sprained ankle.

Telling people to not do something that they may need to do to survive doesn't work well, in my experience. Teaching them how to make those manuevers safely works a lot better - even if learning to do them incurs some small amount of risk. If you're going to have to make a panic turn one day at 100 feet, you will be much better off if you've made a dozen of them at 200 feet than if you've never made any because you are afraid of turning your canopy too low.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Doesn't this argument eventually boil down to where we draw the line on how many laws/rules we want to create to protect people from themselves?

(Enough so that the sport looks attractive to new people and so that you don't get shut down by the rest of society, and not so much that you completely absolve people from their own responsibility to themselves.)

My two cents: 'no' to a BSR on canopy loading.

I think so, the thing that concerns me the most here is where the line gets drawn and the basis for that decision.

It would be easy to impose a de facto WL table depending on where you set the bar for progression.

[DancingFlame 0]

Quote

I believe a lot of people don't learn survival skills like low turns because they downsize too quickly and are afraid of turning their canopy.

I believe it too. Before downsizing, one should fly current canopy to it's fully potential. Jump number means nothing. 500 straight landings are not a good reason to say 'I'm ready for downsizing!'

Proving skills before downsizing is the key. HP landing, flat turns, flare turns etc. Some accuracy will help too but there shouldn't be very strict rules (rectangle 250x100 ft should work).

At my home DZ every jumper MUST receive an approval from his instructor before downsizing. He cannot just bring the rig and jump it. If he jumps canopy too small for him without permission, he may be grounded for a day/week/month (anyway, he may ground himself for whole life). It seems very strict but it works good.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Doesn't this argument eventually boil down to where we draw the line on how many laws/rules we want to create to protect people from themselves?

(Enough so that the sport looks attractive to new people and so that you don't get shut down by the rest of society, and not so much that you completely absolve people from their own responsibility to themselves.)

My two cents: 'no' to a BSR on canopy loading.

Hey Keith,

I have no stake in this debate other then I don't like it when jumper die. I have to many jumps for what they are proposing and if they want I'll take any "test out" they can come up with.

With out some form of control put on W/L vs numbers how do we prevent the newer jumpers from getting under canopies that their experience and knowledge can't handle in a tight situation? If all new jumpers used the sensible approach to choosing a canopy that I have seen you do, there wouldn't be this discussion, but many don't/won't.

What do you feel would be a workable program?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Bartje 0]

I do have even a FX89 for sale,
thats faster for him to do a accident.

Dorbie, I'm already a rebel in my canopy course but you have show me that you are not ready to jump an other (faster) canopy yet. listen to the adivice and stay safe, I would not like to see you in the statistics.

A FreeFly Gypsy

[gdmusumeci 0]

Quote

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.

How about a student progression that focuses just as much on canopy flight as it does on freefall skills? I'm not sure why a student (<50 jumps) with some proper instruction couldn't execute a fairly good flat turn and avoid both striking the fence and turning themselves into the ground.

I think that the skydiving community can impose all the restrictions it wants, but that doesn't solve the problem, which is fundamentally one of attitude and education.

[bob.dino 0]

A lot of people are missing the point here:

The restriction would apply only to people who can't demonstrate sufficient ability to fly a faster/smaller canopy. This ability is developed by obtaining education.

Ergo, the whole point of this proposal is to force people to seek education.

[cloud9 0]

I have a question I'd like to know how you would handle in the wing loading BSR. Lets say at 200 jumps you buy a Pilot 150 your exit weight is 180 for a wing loading of 1.2
Ok now lets say over the course of 1 year you make 75 jumps and you gain 20 lbs. Now your wing loading is 1.33 at 275 jumps. Do you ground that person until they loose weight, let them jump their canopy? More importantly if you let them jump their canopy how do you word that in the BSR? This is not far fetched I did almost exactly this two years ago.