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

[kimemerson 7]

The 'A' in S&TA is for "Adviser". They have no, zero actual authority to enforce anything. They cannot even ground anyone. They require DZO cooperation for anything. An S&TA can recommend and they can get the ball rolling by making reports to Regional Directors. But they cannot enforce a single thing without the explicit cooperation of management and/or owners. I was an S&TA for six years and I ran into a bit of difficulty at times trying to make things happen. If someone wants to overload a canopy then all an S&TA can do is guide, suggest, advise. But there is no power to govern or rule And as with all things, once someone has spoken, you need someone to listen in order for it to be effective. So when an S&TA suggests someone is out of their league, a "fuck off" reply might just have to be accepted. It isn't pretty or wise, but it may just be the fact.

[BillyVance 34]

Actually, an S&TA in charge of a demo jump can say "Hell NO!" to someone wanting to be on it, and again when said person tries to get others to make the S&TA allow him/her on it.

So S&TAs are not completely helpless.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[BoilingMidnight 0]

Quote

Dunno. I'm 1.25 on a sabre2 170. Done about 30 jumps on it so far.

Most knowledgable skydivers suggest a more conservative approach. Why do you think you're immune to the consequences of ignoring them?

Just curious....

"Iþ ik qiþa izwis, ni andstandan allis þamma unseljin."

[MagicGuy 0]

Quote

My post was intended to show that all the people jumping out of planes are for sure not safety first otherwise they would be at the bowling alley.
When you discuss WL it seems to be mostly discussing about the decision how much people are willing to risk and just because they are willing to risk more than you do doesn't mean they are wrong in any way.

OK, so basically that's like saying this: Driving is dangerous. People die all the time driving. I know that, so I'm going to speed, not use my signals and not wear a seatbelt.

I'm willing to risk more because driving is dangerous anyways. Is that wrong in any way?

Just because skydiving is a dangerous activity doesn't mean that we should see how far we can push it without dying. It's been said at other points in this post. Yes, a lot of canopy accidents are happening with higher experience jumpers. But like another poster said, put someone with less experience in that situation and it could be even worse.

Bottom line is, when a person with less experience is flying a higher loaded canopy, they aren't just putting themselves in more risk, but they are putting the other people in the air at risk, as well. And the ignorant attitudes regarding this is what irritates me.

[MagicGuy 0]

Quote

But as somone rightly said, if one Dz won't take my money on my 1.6 wingloading another 4 will take the pepsi challange.

Geez, dude.. I can't imagine people seeing you coming and say "Awesome! Crashtested is here". The whole rebellious thing gets old with people after a while.

[Hausse 0]

Quote

OK, so basically that's like saying this: Driving is dangerous. People die all the time driving. I know that, so I'm going to speed, not use my signals and not wear a seatbelt.

Nope I'm not. I'm saying that if someone wants to speed because he feels it's worth the increased risk of getting hurt/die then it's nobody elses business to question that decision. Speeding is a bad example though since usually somebody else is involved in accidents and as far as I know crashes are not very frequent in skydiving due to an additional dimension.

I'm willing to risk more because driving is dangerous anyways. Is that wrong in any way?

Just because skydiving is a dangerous activity doesn't mean that we should see how far we can push it without dying. It's been said at other points in this post. Yes, a lot of canopy accidents are happening with higher experience jumpers. But like another poster said, put someone with less experience in that situation and it could be even worse.

That is your opinion. I'm sure a for a lot of people it's all about pushing the envelope

Bottom line is, when a person with less experience is flying a higher loaded canopy, they aren't just putting themselves in more risk, but they are putting the other people in the air at risk, as well. And the ignorant attitudes regarding this is what irritates me.

Yeah you are right some of us are assholes

[billvon 2,384]

>At 200 jumps to continue you need to take a jump course.

>Or to be above a 1.5 wing loading you need to take a pass or fail exam.
>or you stick with what you've got.

We suggested that a while back. Add canopy loading limits to license levels. You have to take a canopy control course and pass (or at least pass the test at the end) to progress to the next level. If you don't want to to do that, and just want to jump that Manta forever, you can get a restricted license just like you can now for night jumps.

[billvon 2,384]

> Actually, an S&TA in charge of a demo jump can say "Hell NO!"
>to someone wanting to be on it . . .

. . . and the person can go to the DZO and get another plane to do the same demo. As Kim mentioned, the S+TA's only real power comes from the DZO who chooses to enforce his groundings/decisions.

[kimemerson 7]

Yes, the S&TA CAN say no but still has no final authority unless supported by DZ management. There are no BSR's requiring the S&TA input for a demo, but in the SIM, under Exhibition jumps, it says, "1) The S&TA or I/E may recommend the use of specific jumpers or advise the organizer to use only individuals meeting certain experience requirements." Note the words "may" and "recommend". Nothing about "should", "must", "has the authority" or "required". It is still down to how well the S&TA is supported. An S&TA is not required before doing a demo, and if an demo organizer wants his 80 year old grandmother to jump a heavily loaded Velocity when she hasn't even done a tandem, it's his choice and go fuck the S&TA if that's the nature of the relationship. Again, S&TA has no real authority anywhere unless backed up.

[BillyVance 34]

Billvon and Kimemerson -

I should have included the fact that the S&TA in question was ALSO the DZO, AND the pilot/owner of the DZ plane.

Nice to have that kind of power, eh?

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[kimemerson 7]

Yep. I've grounded people only to have them march right up to the DZO and claim they were valuable to the DZ because they were on a team and were doing a lot of jumps etc. and I was overruled on the spot. I think the person in question may have missed one load as a result. Grounded for as long as it took to find the DZO and bitch. Case settled. Thank you for your tireless and useless efforts, Kim. This approach was a vital consideration of mine when I opted out of being S&TA another term. If you lack support from the DZO, then S&TA's hands are very tied. He/she is in fact, very useless and meaningless on such a DZ.

[billvon 2,384]

>I should have included the fact that the S&TA in question was ALSO the
>DZO, AND the pilot/owner of the DZ plane.

Ah. Then all you had to say was "he was the DZO." Then he has the ultimate say over what goes on at his DZ. The S+TA part doesn't even enter into it at that point.

[jsaxton 0]

Quote

Anyone who knowingly allows someone with 200 jumps jump a canopy loaded at 1.9 should go to jail if and when that person biffs and dies. That being said, you can not save everyone from themselves.

So someone who sells a GSX600 to someone who has only been riging bike for a year should go to jail if the rider puts the bike into a K-rail?
Gimme a break

[Amazon 7]

Hey Bill can we have a new forum ... dedicated to all the DGIT's out there (DEAD GUYS IN TRAINING for all you natural skydivers who think it can never happen to you)).....so we can make lists of who we think will be the most likey to burn in under a canopy too small.. Make it kind like FAntasy Sports.. a little online place to wager a bit of money on who and when they will reach the incidents forum.

[kimemerson 7]

Come to the Ranch. We have "Bounce Bingo". Or we did. Even had a winner. Someone died. Someone collected. And I think that someone is dead too. O-bla-di, o-bla-da, life goes on...

[mnskydiver688 0]

nevermind

Sky Canyon Wingsuiters

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Speeding is a bad example though since usually somebody else is involved in accidents and as far as I know crashes are not very frequent in skydiving due to an additional dimension.

Actually, speeding in a car is an excellent analogy. Smaller parachutes fly through the air faster than bigger parachutes. The faster your parachute flies, the more ahead of it you have to be mentally to fly it safely. Just like speeding in a car. At 100 mph or under a higher wingloading, one second of inattention can be fatal.

And not just to you. You can go rack yourself up all you'd like. But your right to take risks stops at my right to not take certain risks.

That additional dimension that you mentioned? Instead of making it safer for those with limited amounts of "harness time" (especially harness time in traffic), as you seem to suggest, this additional dimension adds much more complexity to the situation. The "Big Sky" theory does not work; take a look at last year's fatalities if you need proof.

Don't get me wrong. I'm fine with jumping with people who have a higher risk tolerance than I do and therefore fly much smaller, faster canopies than I ever will. But I like to know that they also have real experience flying skydiving canopies - in traffic - if I'm going to be sharing the air and landing area with them. And 50, 100, 200 jumps? Not the kind of real experience I'm talking about...

Which is why when I see novice jumpers flying higher wingloadings I'm likely to choose not to be on the airplane with them.

[Hausse 0]

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.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

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.

Percentages mean a lot less when it's you or somebody you know.

Because the risk of collision is smaller speeding around the sky than it is speeding on the roads does not give you the right to put other jumpers at increased risk.

Here's a question that never seems to get answered by those who post here about their higher wingloadings and low experience. What are you going to do when somebody suddenly "appears" in "your" airspace, especially on final? The depth of a person's answer to that question can reveal a lot about just how ready they are for a higher wingloading.

[ROK 0]

Whenever someone asks for advice, the majority of those giving it will naturally air on the side of caution. To not do so would be in some instances not only wrong, but possibly criminal.

It seems after reading hundreds of posts that there really isn't a "one size" fits all answer.

The manufacturers post what they believe to be "safer" wing loadings. Bill has shared a list of tasks that make sense and should be followed as a stepping stone. Unfortunately there are probably a lot more people then we think who couldn't pass Bill's list if it were a test.

To put into effect "laws" that would dictate exact wing loading limits would hold those back who naturally progress faster than others. It would also leave many open to liability if a defined wing loading was adhered to, and the individual damaged themselves anyway. Hence the word "suggested".

I do believe that taking a canopy course should be a requirement for everyone.

A big part of this sport is being self supervised after completing the requirements to obtain a license. The natural course makes an assumption that if you're going to risk your life, you better have some common sense.

I'm fortunate enough to have a home DZ with a lot of true experts. People who will spend time with me and have let me know in no uncertain terms when I'm being stupid. People who know my skills, or the lack of. People who work with me frequently to improve on the things that I'm weak at. This is the way it should be.

A higher wing loading may not kill you, but it certainly increases the odds of doing so.

In a dangerous sport with very few definable laws, it takes common sense and team work to increase our odds of survivability (sp).

Highly experienced people on this forum will do their best to share what they have learned with us, and try to keep us from increasing or odds of becoming a bag of jello, but it's up to us to seek out advice from those who have trained us, and know our skills. To not do so is just plain stupid.

As far as "bounce bingo" goes, Karma can be a real bitch...

[Bill_K 0]

Quote

My post was intended to show that all the people jumping out of planes are for sure not safety first otherwise they would be at the bowling alley.
When you discuss WL it seems to be mostly discussing about the decision how much people are willing to risk and just because they are willing to risk more than you do doesn't mean they are wrong in any way.

I'm very willing and happy to accept a level of risk to engage in this sport. What I don't want is the guy with ~100 jumps loading up at 1.9 and not understanding how to fly a pattern making that choice for me. When he's in the sky with me putting me at risk of being taken out because he's free flying for example and I'm belly flying and he pulls later, but has to come down through my airspace because he's landing faster and takes me out, well he's made the risk choice for me.

[hackish 8]

Quote

An instructional rating is given because someone shows that they can fly and teach basic skydiving skills, not because they have knowledge about anything other than basic skydiving skills.

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.

I believe Canada has very good safety statistics and I feel that cost and dedication drive lots away - not fear and injuries. When it costs a couple of hundred dollars per jump as a student that makes the sport very expensive.

-Michael

[Hausse 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

Percentages mean a lot less when it's you or somebody you know.

Because the risk of collision is smaller speeding around the sky than it is speeding on the roads does not give you the right to put other jumpers at increased risk.

Here's a question that never seems to get answered by those who post here about their higher wingloadings and low experience. What are you going to do when somebody suddenly "appears" in "your" airspace, especially on final? The depth of a person's answer to that question can reveal a lot about just how ready they are for a higher wingloading.

First of all: Statistics mean always the same no matter who's involved.

And second:
I never said that it was good that inexperienced people load canopies at 1.9.
I never said that they don't put you in danger.
I said is that it is nobody elses business to decide how much risk they should be taking. I know that their decision will influence you and your safety but that does not change that they have the right to choose how safe they want to be.
I'm pretty sure most of the people who do what you consider as stupid will be willing to cooperate with you if you tell them your concern and just adjust their exit point or something along that.

I'm not an experienced pilot and I have no clue who should be loading which canopy how high. So far my instructor told me jump that canopy and I jumped that canopy. But I know that people have different perceptions about live and they have the right to do whatever they want to do with it. I haven't met a jumper yet who would willingly endanger me and I am confident it will stay like that.

[billvon 2,384]

>Actually, speeding in a car is an excellent analogy.

Agreed. And in many ways, a faster canopy is like a faster car with terrible brakes, one that CANNOT go slow. Can someone handle it? Probably, if they have a lot of experience always being ten seconds ahead of the canopy.

The problem is that I guarantee you that the new jumper who is being "really really careful" on his new Stiletto is not ten seconds ahead of the canopy. He's probably not ahead of the canopy much at all, but since he flies a really wide pattern and doesn't try to hit any given target, he is usually OK. It's when he gets cut off that the fun starts. The moment before he pulls down that toggle he has to see where the canopy is going to go, how he will stop the turn, how much energy he will have at that moment, how much he's going to let the canopy recover, how he's going to get back on the windline (or how much of an off-windline landing he's going to take) and whether there are any obstacles in the way. And if that's not going to work, he has to come up with ANOTHER plan before he touches his brakes. It's all doable, but it takes a _long_ time to develop that ability.

That's one reason that I think that it is sometimes better for newer jumpers to do nothing if they are about to collide with someone else near the ground and are jumping their new canopy they are being "careful" on. If they can't think that far ahead, their odds of survival are much lower - and it may be better to just keep flying ahead and hope the other person is more competent.

(Not disagreeing with you, just using your post as a launch point.)

[MagicGuy 0]

Hausse.. you're opinions are totally.. I don't even know what to call them. To say that "I said is that it is nobody elses business to decide how much risk they should be taking. I know that their decision will influence you and your safety but that does not change that they have the right to choose how safe they want to be. ".. is pretty much ludicrous and ridiculous.

How can it not be my business, as someone who is in the air with someone else, to voice my concerns over my personal safety.. safety which is now being compromised because of some renegade newbie that wants to jump a small canopy. I don't understand your logic.

"I'm not an experienced pilot and I have no clue who should be loading which canopy how high."

Exactly.