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

[billvon 2,406]

>The other reason is cost, i, like many others don't have the money to
>buy a new rig every other year, so i have to make a choice which allows me
>to progress with my canopy, and will allow me to downsize from my 190 to
>a 170 then to a 150, if i so chose.

If you have the money to buy an unsafe rig, you have the money to buy a safe rig. Having to stick with a 170 for an extra year while you save up for another rig will pay dividends in safety overall - both in keeping you safe while you learn and giving you time to master the 170.

[strop45 0]

Quote

When you come to safety VS. money, it's a no brainer....... Find out what you like and fly safe shit at the same time.............I'm finally getting safe gear in a canopy size that is safe.

I disagree with you on two counts. Firstly there is a balance between safety and money, and everything around you, cars, bridges, building, washing machines etc us designed taking both into account. You can argue that in this case the improvement in safety is good value for the extra money, but not that money isn't a consideration.

Secondly there's no such thing as safe. Any canopy can hurt or kill you. Higher wing loadings/higher performance are simply less safe.

Part of the reason for this debate is that there seems no real data or rationale (other than high wing loading = higher risk) behind suggested wing loadings/jump numbers.

Personally I'd be happier with some type of training skills list which you had to pass before being allowed to fly a various classes of canopies.

stay safe...

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein

[Bill_K 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am sure that it is different for every person and that a restriction would take away one of the great things about skydiving. The freedom to do things the way you think is right.

Since skydiving is an aviation related sport, perhaps a comparison to learning to fly airplanes would help you see the point.

Let's say you have a private pilots license but only have 50 hours total time. You may have the skill to safely fly and land an Otter because you're god's gift to piloting, but there are good reasons why you wouldn't be able to get into the left seat of an Otter with only 50 hours of experience flying any airplane. The majority of those good reasons involve the safety of other people.

ACTUALLY in the USA there are NO requirements for total flight hours for a private pilot to be allowed to fly a multi-engine airplane. ALL you have to do is demonstrate that you have the necessary ability, to the satisfaction of the FAA.

Yes and no. The requirement to fly that muliti with paying pax is still a minimum of 250 hours, so again, yes and no...

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

you should accept that OTHERS have an equal right to risk THEIR lives and limbs in whatever way THEY see fit without you acting like a safety nazi.

I don't agree and I find that pretty insulting (even though it wasn't toward me). WE need to prevent preventable injuries as much as possible.

That's easy -
ban skydiving altogether. All skydiving injuries are preventable if you stay home.

Quote

We have lots of restrictions based on jump numbers and licenses already. Saying that everybody should be allowed to do anything they want is the wrong answer. I don't know that a hard rule is needed (though I'm not particularly opposed), but education is definitely needed. "I bought a stilleto when I had 40 jumps" and "everybody should be able to take as much risk as they want" (not direct quotes) don't help.

Would you have an issue if a bunch of guys with 100 jumps or less decided to attempt a 100-way? They all know it's risky and don't mind. Should they be allowed?

Dave

Risking yourself and risking others are quite different things. If I think someone dangerous is on a load with me, I have the option of getting on a different load.

How many fatalities TO OTHERS have been caused by low time jumpers with small canopies?

How does the accident rate of low time jumpers with small canopies compare with that of experienced jumpers with small canopies?

If you can't answer those questions you shouldn't be calling for more rules.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am sure that it is different for every person and that a restriction would take away one of the great things about skydiving. The freedom to do things the way you think is right.

Since skydiving is an aviation related sport, perhaps a comparison to learning to fly airplanes would help you see the point.

Let's say you have a private pilots license but only have 50 hours total time. You may have the skill to safely fly and land an Otter because you're god's gift to piloting, but there are good reasons why you wouldn't be able to get into the left seat of an Otter with only 50 hours of experience flying any airplane. The majority of those good reasons involve the safety of other people.

ACTUALLY in the USA there are NO requirements for total flight hours for a private pilot to be allowed to fly a multi-engine airplane. ALL you have to do is demonstrate that you have the necessary ability, to the satisfaction of the FAA.

Yes and no. The requirement to fly that muliti with paying pax is still a minimum of 250 hours is not specified, so again, yes and no...

Yes.

And you need 500 jumps to be a tandem intructor to carry a passenger parachutist.

Passengers have nothing AT ALL to do with whether you can fly a multi, which specifies NO flight hour minimum.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pilotdave 0]

Those 100 newbies all accept the risk of doing a 100 way. Nobody else will be in the air. They can't hurt any bystanders. Should they be allowed to organize the jump themselves and do it? Can you see that an accident on that jump would likely have consequences that affect you and not just the participants? That's the problem here. Suicide by skydiving, for example, is incredibly selfish because it affects people other than the jumper killing himself. Just because one jumper is ok with doing something dangerous doesn't mean anybody else should accept it.

We, as skydivers, should focus on reducing accident rates while still allowing our freedom to jump as much as possible. Sure, you could ban skydiving to make it 100% safe. That's a GREAT solution for anybody in the world that has no interest in skydiving. WE need solutions that allow us to skydive. And even allow swoopers to swoop. And allow wingsuiters to wingsuit. And allow CRW guys to bark like dogs. And allow atmonauts to draw ridiculous diagrams. We need to make those activities as safe as possible without banning them.

If you were a swooper, wouldn't it piss you off to see some kid with 100 jumps trying to swoop his stilleto? He could get swooping banned at your DZ. Wouldn't it piss you off to see a newbie organizing RW and telling everyone to barrel roll on breakoff to check for traffic? That could get someone hurt.... not you, but someone else. Can't you see that that's bad?

I don't have numbers to present to you on a powerpoint slide. I'm captain obvious. Newbie + high wingloading = bad. Do you really not agree because you don't have data to show that they're dying left and right? Clearly they're not. Does that mean it's safe?

Dave

[crashtested 0]

Quote

Actually, it was the master rigger that said "I think you should wait a while to jump that canopy and keep jumping the 150."

Still, you were grounded. i.e not allowed to jump with that rig, you probally thought you were being "cool"

What i did was get the advice of people about my first rig, so i took the advice given, bought a 170 packed it with a 190, and one day maybe will downsize >

You telling others to be careul and listen to your advice when you did what "you think" everyone your complaining about does. You went out on your own and bought / borrowed a rig which you did not have the skills to fly safely.

now to me that sounds like a pretty dumb choice

By your discription it sounds like you were risking it with the 150 let alone the 135.

It sounds like they thought, "man this guy is a risk" what is he thinking!! better ground him

Have fun flying your 190 over there in England. 190s aren't as cool as 170s, though. You should downsize.

??????????????????????????????????????????
maybe next year ??!"£!£$%^

Unless your encouraging me cause you have jump 98 in my bounce bingo

[MagicGuy 0]

Whatever you say, man. You're looking at it all wrong. I was glad that they didn't let me jump the 135. I'm glad that I was brought up with the attitude and morals of wanting the sport to grow, and keeping my fellow jumpers and friends off of the fatality list. I'm glad that at my DZ, you can't be jumping a 1.6 wingloading when you don't even have 100 friggin jumps. I'm glad that I don't have to worry about some asshole with an elliptical canopy at 50 jumps cutting me off and putting me at risk.

I'm just glad that you're over there and I'm over here.

[kallend 1,635]

The place YOU draw the line on risk is not, and does not have to be, the same place anyone else does.

As long as the decision is an INFORMED decision, it is up to the jumper (and the DZO, since his facility is involved) to make it and not you.

IF we had a rash of low time jumpers injuring other people on account of their canopy choices, that would be a different matter. However, we don't.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pilotdave 0]

You're missing my point. I injuring themselves is bad enough. You feel that your decision to jump a stilleto at 40 jumps was "informed?"

Dave

[crashtested 0]

Quote

Whatever you say, man. You're looking at it all wrong. I was glad that they didn't let me jump the 135. I'm glad that I was brought up with the attitude and morals of wanting the sport to grow, and keeping my fellow jumpers and friends off of the fatality list. I'm glad that at my DZ, you can't be jumping a 1.6 wingloading when you don't even have 100 friggin jumps. I'm glad that I don't have to worry about some asshole with an elliptical canopy at 50 jumps cutting me off and putting me at risk.

TBH my last visit to the states, none of the 3 dropzones looked twice at my rig, or questioned my ability to fly it, they looked at my licence and they showed me a map, showed me where the outs were, warned me of the wind shear, than let me loose.

Than it was left to me to find out on most loads what people were doing, i had to bug people for line checks, i had to bug people to tell me what height they were pulling at!! I think out there wing loading is only a small part of the reason injuries happens.
Just my experiance, despite that though. there were a lot of very friendly people out there, but maybe just slightly to busy to look out for one another.

I'm just glad that you're over there and I'm over here.

whats stealing your girlfriend got to do with anything??

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

You're missing my point. I injuring themselves is bad enough. You feel that your decision to jump a stilleto at 40 jumps was "informed?"

Dave

Yes, I do. It was well researched, recommended by the DZO and my instructors, approved by the S&TA, and the outcome was exactly as expected. Did they make the same recommendation to everyone - not at all. Did any other jumpers complain that I was endangering them? No.

You bring up 100 ways, but that is a complete red herring. There is NO evidence that low time jumpers with canopies you consider inappropriate are hurting other people at a rate higher than experienced jumpers (Danny P. comes to mind here).

IF you have evidence to support your position, please present it.

I have an alternate hypothesis for you. The problem is Young Males engaging in risky behavior. CLearly we shouldn't allow young males to skydive. I have no evidence except from driving accidents, but it's common sense, isn't it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dunesurfer 0]

Quote

Becoming a skydiver is risky.

Once YOU decide that YOU are willing to risk life and limb being a skydiver, you should accept that OTHERS have an equal right to risk THEIR lives and limbs in whatever way THEY see fit without you acting like a safety nazi. The important thing is that decisions should be informed decisions.

Well, suppose I choose to exit the plane behind you, using the old "45 degree angle" approach to exit timing. You good with that? After all I do have equal right to risk my life in any way I see fit, as you stated.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Becoming a skydiver is risky.

Once YOU decide that YOU are willing to risk life and limb being a skydiver, you should accept that OTHERS have an equal right to risk THEIR lives and limbs in whatever way THEY see fit without you acting like a safety nazi. The important thing is that decisions should be informed decisions.

Well, suppose I choose to exit the plane behind you, using the old "45 degree angle" approach to exit timing. You good with that? After all I do have equal right to risk my life in any way I see fit, as you stated.

Risk YOUR OWN life any way you see fit.

Please post ANY evidence you have that low time jumpers on canopies you consider inappropriate have endangered others to a greater extent than experienced jumpers have endangered others.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[hackish 8]

Even if a jumper goes and kills themselves it hurts our sport through the perception and also the fewer fatalities the less regulators pay attention to us. As a lot time jumper I've asked a number of times to participate in jumps but been turned down because of the jump numbers. So when it comes to others everyone has to be aware of the risks and able to make an informed decision. In DeLand I was landing in the intermediate area and away from traffic - part of the low experience part. While I did fine I think it's important for everyone to recognise that with their skill level they need to improve for their personal goals. If you really do become this mythical sky god it's others who must recognise this not yourself. If others don't feel I'm really good at something then it's probably because I'm not.

-Michael

[kallend 1,635]

Please post ANY actual data you have that low time jumpers on canopies you consider inappropriate have "damaged the sport" in the eyes of regulators to a greater extent than experienced jumpers have done.

The accident rate in skydiving is way down compared with 30 years ago when we were having 50 fatalities/year and USPA had 10,000 members. Regulators weren't all over the sport back then.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wetswooper 0]

Quote

After rading this whole trend and now having bloodshot eyes, I think I liked your post the best. You are going in the right direction in my mind anyway. The only thing that will keep our statistics low is education. Although this is very hard to sell to enthusiastic young jumpers. The only thing I would give an opposite opinnion to would be the jump numbers you have listed.

Thanks,

Quote

A 1.8 at 400 is still a bit high IMHO. I would like it better to say 300 jumps for the 1.6 and 500 jumps for the 1.8 Minimum.
Remember the canopy companies suggest 500 jumps on some of the HP's now.

Yep, IMHO the 1,8 wingload is high for that experience, but also the requirements I proposed to get such a radical canopy are quite extreme and not easily reached. It requires serious commitment to canopy piloting already from the beginning. ("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. ") These are only guidelines presenting the idea, the actual limits clearly need some more thinking.

Actually it would be even better to have some skill requirements and test jumps passed to get that. For example X accuracy landings, braked landings, "emergency toggle input" practice up high, opening position etc. i.e. evaluation jumps that you don't pass if you have not learned the skills. There should be clear requirements for those jumps and they shouldn't be too easy. (It is not for everyone, and not every jump should be signed as ok.) This way we could encourage the newbie wingload wannabies to learns those skills and to realise that maybe they really should learn some more before moving to higher wingloads. It's much easier to say no to them if there are clear skill requirements on evaluation jumps that they should pass. There's some background for saying that he/she is not skilled enough. No student is blaming you for not giving him a license if he didn't pass the jumps required for it...Also everyone else would sleep better if they knew that the guy having that extreme wingload with low jumpnumbers has passed the evaluation jumps and really has commitment for learning canopy skills. At least he/she is skilled hotshot with commitment.

Some might say that on some smaller dropzones it's hard to get that kind of training...LIFE IS... but if you really want it you can travel somewhere to have that coaching.

[crashtested 0]

Thats a good idea, but will it ever happen. i really wish it would in some ways In others I have always been somewhat irresponsible so not really my way of thinking.

then you also have the problem when people like magic guy who are already swooping getting told sorry you don't have the skills, you gotta upsize.

how would they react.. badly or would they take the advice given to them?? intresting

Now that would be funny. how ironic!! some people new to the sport given crossbraced and TMs with thousands of jumps given mantas.

If i were god i would make things like that happen,

You can vote for me online, i´d be no worse than clinton or Ommba

[wetswooper 0]

Quote

Thats a good idea, but will it ever happen. i really wish it would in some ways

There's the problem in all of ours attitudes.
Yes, we are never going to make it perfect or make it such that everybody likes it. But it doesn't require so much to make the situation better than it's now. I'm only looking forward to improvements!

I'm neither a brit or american but IMHO The Brittish Parachute association has done at least something about it with their canopy system. http://www.bpa.org.uk/

Quote

then you also have the problem when people like magic guy who are already swooping getting told sorry you don't have the skills, you gotta upsize.

That's one of the stupidest reasons I've heard not to make any new rules and there are many solutions. For example 2 years period when those who already have some jumps on HP canopies fight the S&TA like before and the rest go with the new rules. After 2 years there are no exceptions. And for those this is not ok, life is hard, once again. Id they couldn't get the jumps or training required in 2 years there should be no reason to complain. Dropzones will always have those stupids who will want to fight every rule they encounter.

[Baksteen 84]

I posted this earlier in the Gear forum, but it may have some relevance to this discussion.

I'm sure some veteran can elaborate if necessary, but when the Dutch KNVvL implemented their unnecessarily impopular and rediculously strict but still mandatory guidelines about downsizing *, they did so stating that you could keep jumping any canopy you were jumping now, but had to meet the requirements when you wanted to change canopies or downsize further.
I understand that it wasn't a very popular decision, and still isn't with some/many.

Note though, that it's your own choice: do as they say, or go jump across the border.
Also note that if you're from across the border, you can't officially get grounded based on these rules.
They'll ground you on common sense instead.

Personally, I am very glad that such rules exist - it gives me clear guidance as to what's viewed as an acceptable risk and what is not.
As some have said, the opinion of two different instructors at two different DZs may vary.
However, time and again you hear the argument that light people are overlooked in these guidelines, as they only look at jumpnumbers versus wingload.

I'm not saying this is the magic solution, it is a solution.

(*sprongen = jumps, minimaal = at least, ongelimiteerd = unlimited)

edited to clicky..

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[crashtested 0]

JM's being told you have to upsize, there are a lot of old schoolers out there who have thousands of jumps, but have never attended a canopy course, who have really bad habits, never get critizised because they are old school and can't possibly do anything wrong!!

I reallly think is a good idea but is only practicle to a point, everyone needs to be on board... 1 jump to 10 000 jumps get everyone singing from the same hymm sheet.

the high risk group of people have between 300 - 500 jumps, they need to be targeted first as they are the ones dying at present.

[wetswooper 0]

Quote

JM's being told you have to upsize, there are a lot of old schoolers out there who have thousands of jumps, but have never attended a canopy course, who have really bad habits, never get critizised because they are old school and can't possibly do anything wrong!!

.....

the high risk group of people have between 300 - 500 jumps, they need to be targeted first as they are the ones dying at present.

It would be extremely hard to do anything about those old school bad habit jumpers, but it's a completely different problem which doesn't make it any less valuable to have rules for those how have less than 500 or 1000 jumps.

For those oldschool guys (if are there any old school girls with bad habits...I want one..), IMHO it's the problem of DZO's to make them follow the rules about landing areas and general swooping rules on that dropzone. If some old school JM does toggle turn swoops on areas where swooping is allowed and not in the traffic, it's their own problem to stay alive.

[JumpRu 14]

Quote

Newbie + high wingloading = bad

I would agree with you but my own experience makes this statement questionable. I know that

Beginner + low wingloading may = very bad.

My canopy folded in half at 100 ft sending me back in freefall with no time to react. All thet was on calm spring day, no warning, students were allowed to jump.

I'm not saying that:

Newbie + high wingloading = good

it is just that this is not black and white question. That is decision that affect safety BOTH WAYS. It may be dangerous and it may make you safer. That decision is ultimately for the jumper to make. Because it is his/her sorry ass will be under that canopy. S&TA may advise on the subject but he will not be there to land your canopy for you.

Ideal situation looks like

medium experience + medium wingloadind = good safety

question is who determing those terms, when it is ok to downsize, I belive it should be up to jumper to take this decision. Our jub is to provide the facts and help to make good decision in every particular case.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

the high risk group of people have between 300 - 500 jumps, they need to be targeted first as they are the ones dying at present.

Do you have data to support that claim?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Beginner + low wingloading may = very bad.

My canopy folded in half at 100 ft sending me back in freefall with no time to react. All thet was on calm spring day, no warning, students were allowed to jump.

Well, not sure what the beginner part has to do with it really. Some people believe that low wingloadings can be more dangerous than higher loadings in some situations. I've jumped at a wingloading of about 0.45 or so... I'm personally not a believer that too little wingloading is bad, except maybe in really extreme cases. Not that I'd recommend a wingloading much less than 1.0 for licenced jumpers.

But I don't think you need to get up to stupidly high wingloading (1.4+) for a newbie to be safer in case of turbulence. You may have just hit the ground harder if you had been jumping a smaller canopy when yours collapsed.

Dave