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

[Joellercoaster 6]

Quote

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.

And you'd still get a 200-jump wonder complaining about how the 300 limit oppresses him (and it will be a 'him") because he's Ahead Of The Curve.

So I say regulate, pick numbers, enforce. As someone upthread said, they'll get over it if they really are God's gift to skydiving.

--
"I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan

"You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

[crashtested 0]

Quote

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?

1.The same reason you went to you dz with a 135, and got grounded.

2.Fly a manta and let me know why i made the choice to fly a safire 190 instead.

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.

Out of the two of us magic guy. only You have ever been grounded, at that was at you home DZ.
You made a choice to take a small rig that was obviously to small for your skill level, and your DZO grounded you with the rig.

Try asking yourself, why that day you thought you had mad skillz, and were capable of flying a canopy with a 1.1 wing loading, And you might awnser you own question regarding other peoples choices.

[Bill_K 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

And you'd still get a 200-jump wonder complaining about how the 300 limit oppresses him (and it will be a 'him") because he's Ahead Of The Curve.

So I say regulate, pick numbers, enforce. As someone upthread said, they'll get over it if they really are God's gift to skydiving.

Trust me when I say; if properly enforced some of these restrictions are not a bad thing (NOT SAYING REGULATE EVERYTHING). I was told that the recomendation for doing a WS jump was to have 200 jumps, etc. So when I heard that we had a first flight course coming to our DZ and I was ~35 or so jumps shy of that number with 5 weeks to go, I set about getting those jumps. In otherwords I met the recommended number, even though it required me to really accelerate my jump rate per weekend for a month. I did NOT question that number, it was set by those with much higher jump numbers than I have, which in turn tells me they have a LOT more experience and wisdom in the sport. Those numbers are there for a reason so I followed them. Turned out to be one of the best things that I ever did for myself and what I like to enjoy in Skydiving!

[Bill_K 0]

Quote

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.

There are many creative ways to bring this cost of entry down!! Start here for example. Many complete rigs to be had, or you can piece together what you need. When the time comes and you want to buy your first container you can again be creative here. You can buy a container sized for a 170 for example and put from a 150 up to a 190 in it usually. (Check with the manufacturer first.) You may have to change D bags, but you can get much use out of that new container before you have to get a new smaller one. By the time you need one you'll have a year or two or three or more in the sport and you can resell that container to put toward your new one... In other words if cost is an issue you can find ways to be creative and over come it.

[pchapman 261]

I'm still in the "educate them" camp, rather than "mandatory rules" camp, even if it is hard to get through to some people.

However, even if a DZ (the DZO, S&TA, whomever) is uncomfortable with preventing a person from jumping gear they bought, people will be more comfortable with the DZ using their power regarding landing areas.

So the hotshot might be told that based on what people have seen of their landings, they are not approved to land at the pond, or may not swoop at the gates, or things like that. Restrictions could even go two very different ways: To force the person to land away from the normal non-swoop area if they are judged not to be heads up enough yet, or to force the person to land in the normal non-swoop area if the intent is force them to fly a normal pattern and not yet get distracted by trying to swoop hard.

The preference for education over rules is "small town thinking", but also one based on observation in a smaller market:

-- Nobody ever has canopy collisions.

(Last one I recall hearing about in my region in Canada of at least half a dozen DZ's is about 5 years ago. Being at a C-182 DZ reduces but does not eliminate landing issues.)

-- Rarely does anyone actually break themselves swooping

(It's been years at the DZ I'm at that anyone broke anything, although earlier there were a couple femurs, an ankle, a wrist, etc. However, it is true that every year one hears of a couple people at other area DZ's breaking themselves up.)

-- I consider myself fortunate to have been allowed to fly small elliptical very early, and don't want to dump on newbies now and deny them opportunities I had.

(No canopy nazis back then. But I didn't jump the small canopies regularly, nor was there any thought of accelerated swoop landings. That makes a huge difference.)

-- People keep talking about "take a canopy course". But that doesn't really exist unless one gets on a jet plane and flies a couple thousand miles.

(Although one DZ in the province has started bringing in Brian Germain once a year. So far, that's an exception to what has long been normal.)

Obviously this all clashes dramatically with what "big DZ" people are thinking and have experienced!

It doesn't eliminate the desire for a more structured learning environment for flying a canopy, but reduces the need to start forcing people to do things a certain way.

The funny thing (for those who disagree with all this) is that this year I got picked / volunteered to be in charge of canopy piloting education at the DZ. That kind of forces one to start making some decisions rather than playing the hands-off live-and-let-live (or live-and-let-die) strategy.

It'll be interesting to see whether I actually get through to anybody or just end up with a dusty binder full of useful educational information….

[crashtested 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

There are many creative ways to bring this cost of entry down!! Start here for example. Many complete rigs to be had, or you can piece together what you need. When the time comes and you want to buy your first container you can again be creative here. You can buy a container sized for a 170 for example and put from a 150 up to a 190 in it usually. (Check with the manufacturer first.) You may have to change D bags, but you can get much use out of that new container before you have to get a new smaller one. By the time you need one you'll have a year or two or three or more in the sport and you can resell that container to put toward your new one... In other words if cost is an issue you can find ways to be creative and over come it.

This is what i have done, but if i was to fly a 1.o > WL my first rig would have been a 260 or around that kind of size. Which after my consoles i found it to be to big to practice things like rear riser landings, riser turns, harness turns etc.
It also had the added bonus of going backwards with winds over 14 mph, which again ltd my jumping and currency.
What would be better? not jumping for 4 months of the year due to winds or jumping every week and staying current?
Personally i prefer the latter!
but thats my take and again i'm on the size rig that my DZ recommended.( aff coaches, packer, Dzo, and Canopy instuctor)

[MagicGuy 0]

"1.The same reason you went to you dz with a 135, and got grounded."

Read it again. I was never grounded. The canopy was. I had another rig, with another main, that was in the air, with me in it, that weekend.

"2.Fly a manta and let me know why i made the choice to fly a safire 190 instead."

'I wanted a better flare'. Common, just say it.

"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."

I've had the same rig for 2 years and I'm doing just fine with the downsizing game.

"Out of the two of us magic guy. only You have ever been grounded, at that was at you home DZ."

Again, I was never grounded.

"You made a choice to take a small rig that was obviously to small for your skill level, and your DZO grounded you with the rig."

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

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

[Para5-0 0]

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. 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.

[Para5-0 0]

If I were King and not have to answer to anyone I would even go a step further and make it 500 for the 1.3-1.5 and 750 for the >1.5 and 1000 for >2.
Wht do I know I guess I am too conserative in this area. And yes I fly a HP highly loaded. I would have fallen within these guidelines so I am not a hypocrite.

[millertime24 8]

My container was built for a 190. When my brother bought it from a guy it had a 170 in it. And I currently have a 210 spectre in it. Rigs tend to be pretty lienient(sp).

Muff #5048

[billvon 2,400]

>I believe that everybody should be allowed to fly what they want to.

We don't do that now, and I see no reason to start.

>As long as people know that they are at a higher risk and accept
>that, they should be allowed to do so.

There is a difference between accepting risk and understanding risk. Students sign waivers that say they accept the risk for their first skydive; indeed is says quite explicitly that their instructors will not necessarily do anything to help them, that the equipment is not guaranteed to work, and that even if they do everything right they can die.

So even first jump students have accepted every possible risk in skydiving.

Now, do they UNDERSTAND that risk? No. And that's why we don't let them jump Velocities.

[Hausse 0]

I have never been talking about students. I have been saying that people that understand and accept the risk should be able to fly what they think is right for them.
This is a philosophical discussion to me. I am talking about the concept of free choice and that skydiving is one of the few sports that is still very much unrestricted and I think it should stay like that. That it can not be 100% implemented because of the spill-over costs should be obvious.

[AllisonH 0]

Quote

I have never been talking about students. I have been saying that people that understand and accept the risk should be able to fly what they think is right for them.

I think many people agree with you on that. What they disagree with is your assessment of when a person is able to "understand" the risk.

[Hausse 0]

Yeah you are right that is probably where the friction comes from. I am not aware thought that I have made a clear statement about when I think a person is understanding their risk. 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. Most other sports don't allow that and I think it would be sad if skydiving became an over regulated sport like scuba diving.

[mnskydiver688 0]

Would it be more accurate to say they don't understand what CAUSES that risk, than the risk itself. You could die is very black and white. It is then up to the instructors to show where that risk is distributed. Showing students where the risk occurs during freefall, during deployment, and during landing. The actions that could kill you under a 80 Velo are largely the same that could kill you under a 260 Navigator. It is the margin of error that is vastly different. I know this is redundant.

There is no way to quantify a persons ability to adjust to new margins of error. Humans cannot fall into distinct categories. Why do you think colleges don't go about teaching in that way. They give you the tools and the problem solving skills to then base decisions off of.

Say you put jump requirements on certain canopies. A person then takes a canopy course to fulfill another requirement, but they take it with a 190 loaded at .9. Then they jump there asses off to get to the required numbers to jump an elliptical loaded at 1.4. Are they ready at jump number 501 to fly that canopy?

I hear time and time again how little canopy skills are developed at larger DZ's. Some don't even know how to pack after 25 jumps. Shouldn't reforming the requirements put on necessary canopy skills before you get that first license seem like a better approach? Make the student do a few cross wind landings, maybe a few downwind landings on light wind days? Show them how different a canopy reacts in those situations under the direction of instructors. Make it a part of the very early training process. Maybe I am way off base here. I mean I have shit for jumps.

Sky Canyon Wingsuiters

[skybytch 259]

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.

Why is it good that there are limits on what inexperienced airplane pilots can fly but not good that some people want limits on what inexperienced skydivers can fly? If increased speed and complexity of an airplane require a lot of "seat time" to be able to safely handle, doesn't it follow that increased speed and complexity of a canopy would require a lot of "harness time" to be able to safely handle?

[mnskydiver688 0]

Are you suggesting going the way of GA?

Sky Canyon Wingsuiters

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

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.

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.

...

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

[kallend 1,623]

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.

...

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

[daremrc 0]

This "I have the right to be as risky as I like" argument holds no water, unless you jump at a dropzone that allows only solo jumps on individual passes. Even then, there is the potential to hurt people on the ground.

In a vacuum, I understand your philosophy. In the real world, it just doesn't work.

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

[Reginald 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.
It would be wrong thought to prohibit people to make risky choices. If we start doing that we might as well prohibit skydiving completely.

The reality is that skydiving IS regulated in many areas. Jumping a camera or wing suit for example requires a certain number of jumps. (and the word ‘should’ is interpreted as ‘will’ at most DZ’s for anyone that wants to parse the regs)

The best general saying I’ve ever heard on this topic is, “You’re free to do whatever you want, just not at my place of business.” If you want absolute freedom go do it on your own property, with your own plane and paid crew.

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

[pilotdave 0]

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. 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

[billvon 2,400]

> I have never been talking about students. I have been saying
>that people that understand and accept the risk should be able to fly what
>they think is right for them.

I agree - once they understand it. However, someone with 200 jumps who has only jumped Navigators does not.

>This is a philosophical discussion to me.

?? Don't you sell/get people deals on canopies?

[MagicGuy 0]

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. 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

I always knew I liked you, Dave.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head with that one.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

1.The same reason you went to you dz with a 135, and got grounded.

Well.... thats a little bit of a stretch here since you're comparing his story with the 135 to that of these assoles who are showing up to DZ's with the same numbers he at the time and trying to load someting at 1:3, 1:4, or 1:6 (on slightly eliptical canopies), compared to his 1:1 (on a very DOCILE Triathlon.... that triathlon 135 is a boat, trust me, I jump one at 1:1) All this ment is that his DZ may be uber conservative and probably has a good S&TA. When I was a student at Xkeys, they wouldn't hesitate to stop somebody in the same position, not because loading a 135 1:1 is that horrible, but just for the principle of the thing. Rules are rules.

Quote

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.

This is the most often heard and DUMBEST thing out of a low time jumpers mouth. When you come to safety VS. money, it's a no brainer, and anybody who want to use this excuse to downsize real fast and look cool, I'll be sad when I read about your thread in an incidents forum post. I really think it's an excuse because there are ways to go through a gear progression and stretch a buck while doing it. First off, rent some gear for a little while. Find out what you like and fly safe shit at the same time. If rental gear is too much for you, and you want to take yourself over to the gear shop with your 30-60 skydives and buy a new rig with a slightly eliptical canopy you're going to overload, then maybe you should take some time and jump less, save a little money, and rent gear for those few jumps you do a month until you can purchase something that you will be safe under and in a few hundred jumps or so, might be able to go down 15-20 square feet in it on your canopy. I did this.... it took me four years, but I got it done and I'm finally getting safe gear in a canopy size that is safe. PLUS, if it takes you four years that gives you enough time to sit and actually listen to long time jumpers, veterans, and get their advice on a lot of things about canopy progression and gear; all the while it'll also give you enough time to sit and probably watch one or two of your buddies take a helicopter ride that didn't listen to the experienced jumper about canopy/gear progression. Just think.... if you think your downsizing will save you money on gear, just think of how expensive a helicopter or ambulance ride is to the hospital. Is it worth it???

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)