High WLs, Low Experience.. Where Are the S&TAs?

[MagicGuy 0]

Quote

Hey skybytch. I agree with you completely about the additional complexity, but the chances that if somebody does something stupid it ends in a crash are smaller in the sky than on a street because there is more room and generally less traffic. If you look at the fatality statistic, just about 30% of the fatalities are from collisions. I would bet the percentage in speeding accidents is severely higher.

I doubt it. The sky is a big place, but everyone is trying to land in the same spot. Add in the complexities of someone who is new to their canopy.. a canopy that is over their head in skill level, and you're back to square one again.

And collisions aren't the only problem. A speeding canopy that speeds into the ground is just as fatal as a collision with another jumper.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Certainly in Canada that is not the case. To earn a coach1 rating about 1/2 of the rating is based with a coaching organization that knows nothing about skydiving - they cover how to "coach" or "teach". It is the same organization who would teach the local fitness trainers as well.

Sorry, I guess I was unclear. In the US, there is no requirement that an instructor have any knowledge about skydiving equipment beyond that which is used in that particular discipline, nor is there any, for lack of a better term, "maturity" requirement. Therefore, having a tandem or AFF rating does not automatically mean that a person has any knowledge about what wingloading might be suitable for someone with 30 jumps, nor is it an indication that the person has the best interests of the novice in mind when giving advice.

I'd define "best interests of the novice" as what will allow the novice to participate in the sport without hurting themselves or others while they are continuing to learn and make mistakes and (hopefully) getting good at it.

Kinda funny. I'd define "best interests of the sport" the same way.

[Hausse 0]

Hey MagicGuy

I don't disagree with you on the whole safety thing. All I said is that it is nobody's business to tell a jumper how much risk they should take. It obviously becomes your business if they are a danger to you.
It would be wrong thought to prohibit people to make risky choices. If we start doing that we might as well prohibit skydiving completely. A lot of lives would be saved and nobody would be in danger of colliding with anybody else.

I'd say the risk of getting killed during a jump just belongs to skydiving. If you do not want to accept that you should stay away from jumping and pick up watching TV.

Blue Skies

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Statistics mean always the same no matter who's involved.

Talk to us about that again after the first person you know becomes one.

Quote

I haven't met a jumper yet who would willingly endanger me and I am confident it will stay like that.

You haven't met many jumpers yet.

"Dude, don't be such a wuss, the winds are only 20 gusting to 25, c'mon, if you don't go the load won't fly."

"Dude, don't be such a wuss, a skydive is the best cure for a hangover, c'mon, it's Bob's special skydive."

"Dude, wtf is up with that huge rig, are you a fucking student? You should get something smaller."

[MagicGuy 0]

Thanks for the clarification, Hausse. I still don't completely agree with everything you are saying. The whole self regulation, 'can't tell someone how much risk to take' is only good to a point. In the early stages of skydiving, where the jumper is just starting to get over the initial sensory overload of actually jumping out of a plane, that needs to be more regulated. There is no reason for someone with low experience to have a high wingloading.

Which brings me to another question that could be asked to these new guys with the high WLs. What is your reason for wanting to jump [whatever canopy it may be]? What can you do on that canopy that you can't do on a bigger one?

[jacketsdb23 45]

Lisa -

"Dude, don't be such a wuss, the winds are only [S]20[/S] 30 gusting to [S]25[/S] 35, c'mon, if you don't go the load won't fly."

Fixed it for ya

Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

[2shay 0]

I have seen this come up a lot. I think that if they would like to jump these high wl then they should be warned, showed the stats, because they seldom lie, and if the dz does not allow them to jump that canopy then they should not jump it or find somwhere where they can. You are right, you can't save everybody from themselves. Outside of that, maybe try to meet in the middle. Maybe say okay if you put such numbers on this wl and maybe some coaching then we can work something out with you jumping that canopy. 1.9 at 200 is retarded I do not agree with that at all and he might be one that you can't save from themself. I just like to keep in mind that we are all on the same team out there, so telling them they will die or seriously injure themself and then turn your back and wait for it to happen is just as stupid as them jumping the canopy in the first place. I think that canopy pilots should go by the stats on their canopy progression. Instead of flaming them when they don't follow it to the letter, maybe educate them, and try to help a little. Keeping in mind were not talking about 1.9 at 200 jumps. If they insist, well at least you tried. This is not directed soley at Spence this is probably a good suggestion for all.

don't try your bullshit with me!!!

[billvon 2,398]

>All I said is that it is nobody's business to tell a jumper how much risk
>they should take.

I do it every weekend when I take first jump students up. We do this because they don't know _anything_ about the risks in skydiving.

As they progress and learn more about the risks, we let them take more risk (i.e. do more dangerous stuff like night jumps.) We describe this explicitly in the license structure, and do this at a less-formal level for things like bigways. You will just plain not be allowed on bigways unless you can prove you are very competent. Works pretty well.

We do this much more informally when it comes to canopies. "Hey, dude, don't jump that thing." But since it is much easier for a jumper to just get a canopy and hook it up, there's a lot less attention paid to this until it's too late - he's already bought the canopy and doesn't care to change it out.

One way to do it is explicitly via licensing rules i.e. you can't jump an X loading until you get to a D license. Another way is to get better about doing it informally, but they you get labeled a "canopy nazi" etc etc. I tried to take a swag at it by coming up with a "canopy control checklist" but optional stuff on the net only goes so far.

So a lot of these discussions are about how to do a better job of this sort of informal regulation. People can get annoyed because sometimes it seems like we have to re-learn some of these lessons every time someone goes in under a good canopy. Hopefully discussions like this will avoid the need for that.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

All I said is that it is nobody's business to tell a jumper how much risk they should take. It obviously becomes your business if they are a danger to you.

Problem is that accidents affect everybody, not just the jumper that got hurt. I don't want anybody getting hurt at any DZ, because it might screw things up for me. Especially if it happens at my DZ. So I don't really care that some newbie is willing to take more risk than people think he should take. I don't care if somebody is just plain old suicidal. Go skateboarding without a helmet... just stay out of my sport.

Dave

[Hausse 0]

I think there is a difference between education people how much risk they take (telling them that it's stupid to jump that WL) and trying to prohibit them to do so because you think they should not be allowed to accept such a risk.

I think the educating part is very important since it is not possible for people to make a valid decision concerning if the risk is worth what ever they get from taking it when they are not aware how high the risk is.
Putting a license requirement on WL on the other hand restricts people of doing what they think is best and that definitely is the wrong way to go.

All those "Hey do this with me" should have absolutely no negative influence on you. If somebody asks you to do something you think is too dangerous just don't do it. If you are too weak of a person to say no, then you are definitely in the wrong sport. I still say though that if somebody comes with such a request to you they do not mean to harm you, they just don't consider your level of risk taking. I doubt that they consider that you might not be willing to risk it because you can't see the additional reward as much as you can't see why anybody would do something so dangerous.

What the reason for jumping what ever canopy is, is a very personal question. It probably reaches from: It's the safest there is to it's the most fun to fly and also it looks the coolest. What ever it may be if people think it is worth risking their health/live for it, why should we possibly not allow them to fly it?

[davelepka 4]

Quote

All I said is that it is nobody's business to tell a jumper how much risk they should take

Not if you do it at my DZ. Instructors, packers, and the DZO are there trying to make living. If you fuvk up, and bring the ambulance, the FAA, or the laywers to the DZ, you're risking the welfare of the DZ itself, and the employment of said workers.

Let's say the damage from your incident is limited to the day of the incident, your actions stand to shut down the DZ until the helicopter has left the field, and how many tandems are going to want to jump after seeing an 'expereinced' jumper crater in?

What about that lost imcome? Who is going to compensate the staff for that? Every hour of sunlight on a day with good weather is where those jumpers make their money, and when you soak that time up being carefully peeled off the ground, it hurts more people than you think.

You want to act like a dickhead, do it with your own plane, at your own DZ. Otherwise, realize that jumping at a DZ is not a god given right, and have some respect for your fellow jumpers.

[Bill_K 0]

Quote

All those "Hey do this with me" should have absolutely no negative influence on you. If somebody asks you to do something you think is too dangerous just don't do it. If you are too weak of a person to say no, then you are definitely in the wrong sport.

Get another 100-150 jumps, down size for that first time and make a bunch of jumps in different weather, oh and be on the receiving end of that a time or three, then come back and tell me why your ok to be in the right sport. I've sat out many times due to winds or conditions that I did not like. I've also been dumb and been that last guy that make the load turn. And it all comes down to the mood that I'm in that day. If I'm in a jump whore mood, I'm making every jump and I don't care. If I'm in a relaxed just there to enjoy life mood, I'm much more likely to sit it out. Give yourself some time in the sport and then lets talk about this statement again.

Quote

What the reason for jumping what ever canopy is, is a very personal question. It probably reaches from: It's the safest there is to it's the most fun to fly and also it looks the coolest. What ever it may be if people think it is worth risking their health/live for it, why should we possibly not allow them to fly it?

I downsized the first time at about ~110 jumps. I went from a 225 to a 190, which I've now put over 100 jumps on the new one. My reasons for downsizeing, partially the statements above. I was at Dublin last year loading my 220 at 1:1 or 1:0.9 and in the strong but steady winds I could not get any drive. So after talking to my local S&TA and the instructors that did my AFF and much thought and care I moved down to a 190. On my VERY first load on the 190 I had the misfortune of getting to do a down winder on the first landing. Guess what though, I ended up running it out and being just fine. However I had made a conservitive choice with much care and thought put into it, something different and the outcome may have been much different. My reasons for downsizing were so that I could jump in stronger winds and make it back. I now load a little over 1.2 give or take depending on the time of day if you get my drift.

[Bill_K 0]

Quote

Quote

All I said is that it is nobody's business to tell a jumper how much risk they should take

Not if you do it at my DZ. Instructors, packers, and the DZO are there trying to make living. If you fuvk up, and bring the ambulance, the FAA, or the laywers to the DZ, you're risking the welfare of the DZ itself, and the employment of said workers.

Let's say the damage from your incident is limited to the day of the incident, your actions stand to shut down the DZ until the helicopter has left the field, and how many tandems are going to want to jump after seeing an 'expereinced' jumper crater in?

What about that lost imcome? Who is going to compensate the staff for that? Every hour of sunlight on a day with good weather is where those jumpers make their money, and when you soak that time up being carefully peeled off the ground, it hurts more people than you think.

You want to act like a dickhead, do it with your own plane, at your own DZ. Otherwise, realize that jumping at a DZ is not a god given right, and have some respect for your fellow jumpers.

Wow, well, well said!!!!

[billvon 2,398]

>What ever it may be if people think it is worth risking their health/live
>for it, why should we possibly not allow them to fly it?

Because they may have so little experience that they may not even understand the risks they are taking.

[Hausse 0]

Everybody seems to be attacked by my statements. I am completely aware of the fact that there are certain special interest parties for who it sucks if somebody does stupid stuff. I am also aware of that it must stink (I have been fortunate enough so far to not having to experience it) to see somebody get hurt. But just because it sucks doesn't make it wrong. Everybody should have the choice what they do with their lives. If they intentionally try to hurt somebody, kick their ass, if they are not aware of what they are doing, educate them but if they make a decision with which you do not agree, you should accept it and talk to the person to make jumping for everybody possible. I haven't been involved in any DZ politics yet but I am fairly sure that there can be a good and constructive approach.

[billvon 2,398]

>if they are not aware of what they are doing, educate them . . .

You have seen some attempts to do that here. Unfortunately, newer jumpers seem to acquire an immunity to some kinds of learning at around jump 100-200, and often the only way they do learn is through a broken femur (best case) paralysis (worst case) or death. Well, you can't really learn anything when you're dead, but you get the idea.

[Hausse 0]

Yeah I'm sure the whole being dead thing would suck for learning. I agree that if people do not know the risks they are taking, they are making decisions based on ignorance. I just believe WL restrictions would hurt the people that know what they are doing and that are aware of the risks and willing to accept them.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I just believe WL restrictions would hurt the people that know what they are doing and that are aware of the risks and willing to accept them.

Why? Those people wouldn't be restricted.

[Hausse 0]

So you just want to make restrictions for people who don't know what they are doing?

That's gonna be fun to enforce

[davelepka 4]

Quote

So you just want to make restrictions for people who don't know what they are doing?

Those are the people who need restrictions. It shouldn't be hard to single them out, they're ones who don't have alot of jumps. Just check the logbook, or what license they have, and you've got a good idea who you're dealing with.

Sure, occasionally 'gods gift to skydiving' shows up, and he probably doesn't need any restrictions. Too bad, restrict him anyway. He's 'gods gift to skydiving', and he'll get over it.

[Hausse 0]

Here we go again. I believe that everybody should be allowed to fly what they want to. It's everybody's own decision how much they want to risk. As long as people know that they are at a higher risk and accept that, they should be allowed to do so.

[davelepka 4]

Thanks for sharing.

[daremrc 0]

Quote

I am completely aware of the fact that there are certain special interest parties for who it sucks if somebody does stupid stuff.

Uh yeah. I'm one of those special interest parties.

You and I, we share the same home state. Hopefully we won't have to share the same airspace, as my special interest at this point is to stay in this sport as long as possible without getting a limp, prosthesis, or funeral out of the deal.

Good judgement comes from experience, and most of that comes from bad judgement.

[ladydyver 0]

Quote

Dunno. I'm 1.25 on a sabre2 170. Done about 30 jumps on it so far. I might even try a 150 by the end of next year but I'll stick to the 170 for a long time yet. It feels conservative to me but definitely isn't according to your evaluation.

Some feel I'm natural at it too but I don't - I just happen to really enjoy flying the 170. There are lots of things for me to work on. Some people are better at things than others so I don't think a 1 size fits all formula is good for everything here.

-Michael

guidelines are there for a reason..... in the end people will follow them if they want to. people may have great skills but when it comes to having to do a flat turn at 50 ft to avoid another canopy would it be better to be on that 170...be down to that 150....or even up on a 190. What canopy will protect you and keep you from going in in that situation. Bottom line is....if you do go in....it is those around you that are going to have to deal with the aftermath of trying to stablize you and resuscitate you. And those that really know you and love you that are watching you are the ones that have to deal with the memory of what ever happens. end of the soap box

DPH # 2
"I am not sure what you are suppose to do with that, but I don't think it is suppose to flop around like that." ~Skootz~
I have a strong regard for the rules.......doc!

[wetswooper 0]

This is to all of you who think that limiting the wingload until someone has enough jumps is not a good thing..

Unfortunately it is the still the best way to measure a skydiver's ability to fly a canopy safely...until we find some other general way to measure if the person is able to fly the higher wingload wing safe enough. I know many skydivers with 2000, 3000 or even 5000 jumps I would say are not good enough canopy pilots to fly a crossbraced or >2 wingload and are stupid enough not to be able to recognize all the additional risks involved and smaller margins for error. But I also know a bunch of newbie skydivers with 300 jumps who are skilled and careful enough to fly a 1,5 wingload, and who realize all the risks involved.

Anyway, generally the jumpnumbers ARE STILL THE BEST WAY TO MEASURE THOSE SKILLS AND AWARENESS.

It would be reasonable though to measure it by some other means. If you want to get ahead of Brian Germains wingloading chart, you need some training, exams etc. For example
1)a skydiver with at least 100 jumps could get a higher wingload up to 1,3 when he/she has passed an exam about the facts and risks involved in flying with higher wingloads and taken a (level1) canopy course with 10 logged canopy training jumps under supervision and signed by a canopy instructor.
2)a skydiver with at least 300 jumps could get an elliptical and a wingload up to 1,6 when he/she has passed an advanced exam about the facts and risks involved in flying with higher wingloads and an exam about swooping basics, and taken a (level2) canopy course with 30 logged canopy training jumps under supervision and signed by a canopy instructor.
3)With at least 400 jumps a skydiver could have a crossbraced canopy and/or wingload up to 1,8 if he/she has passed the basic and advanced level exams in "higher wingload" and "swoop basics" categories, taken at least 3 canopy courses, has at least 200 canopy training jumps with at least 60 jumps under supervision and signed by a canopy instructor.
etc...

With this kind of limitations the skydivers who are interested in HP canopy flight and are willing to learn and practice could proceed faster.
The exams and canopy training ensure that nobody who steps ahead of Brians wingload table is going to do that without studying the risks and theoretical facts and appropriate training. It also gives the skydivers an opportunity to learn more by some other means than getting a smaller canopy.

Even though you could proceed faster this way, it means you have to concentrate in canopy flight. It is not possible to train RW or freefly for the first 300 jumps if you want to do that. You train your canopy skills, you get a smaller wing. Your buddies train RW, they don't. Apparently they are going to a lot more skilled in freefall...but at least there is a way to have a more aggressive learning curve in canopy skills if that's what you want to do.

About that guy flying a katana at 1,9 with 200 jumps..
If he had concentrated whole his skydiving career in canopy skills and done all of that under supervision of a canopy instructor it could be possible that he is safe under his canopy. I doubt he has..

I had that wingload with less than 400 jumps, but I really did nothing else than trained canopy skills and theory until that. I still hope I've had better chance to get decent canopy training by a professional that time. I could have learned the same things with a slightly bigger canopy and smaller risks involved.

BTW, the brittish parachute association has some wingload and canopy training levels on their website, a BPA canopy system.
http://www.bpa.org.uk/