0
Hooknswoop

WL BSR, take 4?

Recommended Posts

Quote


Under 'The Proposal', you won't need a "D" license to have an unlimited wingloading. You would need to complete all the training for A through D and be signed off, but only actually need an A license.



I think you need to just come out and say it. You want every skydiver to Type Rated for the Parachute they are able to use. I have said this before but apparently it has fallen on deaf ears. Think— think of your Proposal as a Type Rating I have mentioned before just like or similar to a pilot being Type Rated for specific aircraft where the pilot has one license but multiple rating. This would allow your Proposal, to leave out the A through D license gibberish all together. I think you are asking too much which will most likely open Pandora ’s Box. Besides you have repeatedly stated that one can advance to a higher wing loading by showing skill and knowledge allowing them to be waived to a higher wing loading. Now this is a problem area, who can sign and file a waiver for wing loading? You said C/I AFF/I, AFF/IE, S&TA. I think this would force unnecessary changes with in the BSR’s. I think the wording you should be thinking of is CLEARED, the individual has been cleared for XYZ canopy that can be listed on their license.

Just some lose ends.
Memento Mori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The S & TA system doesn't keep skydivers from flying too small of canopies. The new guide in the SIM's is helpful for skydivers looking for advice on canopy decisions. Because it is not a BSR, it does not carry any weight and doesn't make the S & TA's job much, if any, easier.

I do not want to include minimum canopy sizes into a WL BSR. The BSR is not deigned to be exact and detailed, it is designed to a, give S&TA's a real guideline to enforce, make canopy training mandatory for everyone, allow new, aggressive skydivers to gain enough experience before downsizing top , much. If a skydiver is at either end of the weight spectrum, the CI, S&TA, i/e, can either enforce a larger canopy requirement (as they can now), or waiver them to a smaller canopy. This is currently the system, but for several reasons, it doesn't work. With a BSR, there will be less problems of skydivers downsizing too quickly, allowing the focus to be on the ones that still wish too downsize quickly. With the reduced workload, it is my hope that the system will begin to work.

The minimum pull altitude works because a, most people realize that it is a good idea, 2, it is a rule and violating the rules can carry consequences, 3it has been around a long time as is simply considered the norm4 it is simple, without a lot of exceptions. and allowances. The MPA BSR is usually enforced because few people violate it and when it does happen, it stands out, bring the attention of the S&TA. The proposed WL BSR would work the same way.

Looking at the proposed WL BSR from the newer jumper's perspective, it only affects (except for the additional cc training required for each license) skydivers that want to push their limits. They still can, but will be required to demonstrate that they are not pushing too hard and that they understand the more advanced cc concepts. Those are the two keys for survival as WL goes up.

Smaller canopies combined with higher WL's result in more injuries not so much because they can hit the ground harder, but because everything happens faster. This means that with a larger, slower canopy the pilot has more time to decide the correct response to changing conditions, and more time to react to mistakes. With a small canopy at a high WL, there is much less time to make critical decisions and a mistake at a higher altitude can result in an incident and are less forgiving of a mistake.

The faster you dive a car, the more distance you must leave between you and the car in front of in order to have the same safety level as you have at slower speeds. Same thing with faster canopies, you have to be mentally farther ahead of where you are than on a slower canopy. For example, with my vx-60 I am turning final where most people are starting their downwind. It takes me about 8 seconds from 1000 feet to landing. There is almost no room for error and I must be thinking well ahead of the canopy.

We have , minimum pull altitudes to keep skydivers alive. We need a BSR to curb the increasing number of cc incidents. Why not do it?

If you an exceptional canopy pilot and want to downsize quickly, you will be able to. If you think you are an exceptional canopy pilot, but aren't and you want to downsize quickly, you won't be able to. Isn't that how it should be?

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> I think the wording you should be thinking of is CLEARED, the
> individual has been cleared for XYZ canopy that can be listed on
> their license.

I don't think there's any way that USPA could track and develop clearance criteria for the perhaps 100 different canopy types out there, each available in 12 sizes. That's 1200 combinations someone at USPA has to keep track of.

Come to think of it, they could probably do it if they put the effort into it. The FAA does. But would you want to support, via your dues, a division of full-time jumpers who do nothing but buy and jump canopies and evaluate their performance to determine performance criteria for canopy clearances? Dues would certainly hit the triple digits pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought that I saw a post at one time about canopy limitations that exist in a country other than the US. If I remember right there was a wingloading, and size and model limitation built into it.

Even though the wingloading chart that Derek has listed above would prevent me from jumping the canopy that I am now, it also would allow me to demonstrate that I can do so safely. (I was put on the canopy by my affi, a person whom I do trust, and I am confident that I can fly it safely)

I do not think that there is a reasonable argument against a wingloading BSR. Saying that they are hard to enforce doesn't cut it. All the BSRs are hard to enforce, and that fact hasn't stoped the USPA in the past. The BSRs are guildlines that a DZ can use so they don't have to try and decide on thier own what is safe. It gives DZs a blanket to fall back on. If your DZ got sued over a WL char they developed they are on thier own defending it. If its a USPA chart then they are going to back it. Thats only one of the small benifits.

Cannopy training doesn't have to be free, and it doesn't have to mean that an AFFI can't make the money jumps. That said, if your an affi and would choose to money jump over instructing for the greater saftey ALL the time then that would sure suck. BUT why should it have to conflict. Creating a rating for canopy instruction, that has training for how to teach canopy flight, allows DZs to have more people who know how to teach and then they don't have to rely on people like Scott Miller to come to the DZ and teach.

If a DZ held a canopy course once/twice a month that would be sufficient enough to cover most of the new students comming into the system.

The only thing holding back a WL BSR are the people who feel like they shouldn't have to demonstrate that they can fly thier canopy. Students comming up in the system would never know the differnce becuase they don't know that there is any other way.

A very long time ago skydiving didn't exist. Then someone had a bright idea to turn this into a sport, since then we have gotten so much smarter in design, skill, and saftey. We are an evolving sub culture, we need to understand that WL BSRs are getting the attention that they are now that pretty much every other rule in the past has gotten.

Thats just how it is. If you look into the legislative process you will see that almost nothing ever comes into existance without some reistance.
~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I could easily write a program to do just that...



It doesn't have to be that specific. If you are licensed or waivered to a 1.3 WL, then it can be an elliptical or a square. If a square is appropriate, but not an elliptical, then that is where the S & TA's step in. There are D licensed skydivers that because of gear choices, and/or ability to handle a high speed malfunction that should not be pulling at 2,000 feet, even though they are licensed to. This is where the S & TA steps in. Imagine if there were not MPA BSR's, S & TA's would not be able to identify and deal with the number of people that pulled to low for their ability. They would be overwhelmed, and skydivers that shouldn't be pulling low be and going in because of it. The MPA BSR's filter most of the problems out, leaving the problems that are left easy to identify and deal with.

Quote

All Instructors should be "CI's".



I agree, but in 1999 when I took the AFFCC, zero emphasis was put on teaching canopy control, and a candidates ability or inability to teach canopy control was neither tested or observed. You could be a very poor canopy pilot and canopy control instructor and pass the course. Canopy control Instruction is way behind. Creating a CI would focus attention on creating CC Instructors and courses at all DZ's.

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That's funny - don't instructors need to land too?

Sure, but at the course, candidates didn't have to land accurately or gracefully in order to get the AFFI rating. They could also be completely unable to teach canopy control. I think the most we did for CC, was to wander out to the boarding area and vaguely mumble, "downwind, base, final, ARE YOU READY TO SKYDIVE!?", and off we went.

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think the most we did for CC, was to wander out to the boarding area and vaguely mumble, "downwind, base, final, ARE YOU READY TO SKYDIVE!?", and off we went



Derek:

just wanted to say "Thanks" for NOT utilizing this teaching teqnique when you was watching me try to pilot a canopy! by the way, when i referred to the "D" license earlier, i was referrencing the DZO's that impose wingload BSR's at their DZ, while it is their DZ, i don't feel it is appropriate for them to set BSR's that are made up from their own protocol, or because someone pounded in at their DZ and tried to sue them...etc...etc...i'm in total agreement that something needs to be done, and done soon, but that said, i mentioned earlier that some very experienced canopy pilots have made some recent fatal mistakes as well, so it is apparent that no matter what the jump #'s or license, it can happen to anyone, anytime, and anywhere. a friend of mine (you know him) said to me once, "i just assume that all of the other canopy pilots could kill me" i feel the same way. i've had a couple of sky divers fall past me while i was under canopy at less than 2,000' AGL, now that was scary!
--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>That's funny - don't instructors need to land too?

I know at least one very experienced AFF-I who cannot stand up her Sabre 150. A program where she automatically became a canopy instructor would work only if she had the good sense not to try to teach anyone how to land a tiny canopy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know at least one very experienced AFF-I who cannot stand up her Sabre 150



Not to start an entirely new debate, but shouldn't she either be on something bigger then or is there a legit reason she's not standing up?

Of course it begs the question why would someone want to fall over landing repeatedly?

Blue skies
Ian
Performance Designs Factory Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Not to start an entirely new debate, but shouldn't she either be on
> something bigger then . . .

Probably, but like you said, that's a different thread.

This is nothing new. DJan, experienced AFF instructor and regional director, broke her pelvis a few years back because she didn't know how to flat turn her (large) parachute. I knew a _lot_ of SL instructors who could barely exit stable, much less teach anyone how to do RW (which, according to the syllabus, they were supposed to do.) 90% of the time they were just tossing people out of airplanes, so they didn't need to know much else.

The gist of all this is that instructors are good at what they're rated in, with no guarantee of any other skills. Although a great many instructors _are_ good canopy pilots and 4-way team members and big-way flyers, that's not any sort of a guarantee that they are really good at (or can teach) HP canopy control or advanced big way flying. I would definitely agree that they're better than nothing, but I would also want to see them used as a bridge to a real rating program (or until they could include HP canopy material in the AFF JCC) rather than as a good final solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your plan is pretty much the same as what you wrote awhile back.

You know, you do have to consider the REAL world in these types of programs.

First, I'll give a mini-history lesson. This is relatively recent history and supporting documents are on the USPA web site.

Second, I'll try to explain some of the fallacies in your presuppositions.

Mini-History Lesson:

I am telling this in chronological order, but do not have the time to look up the exact dates that these events happened. You will find this information in the USPA BOD minutes over the past several years. They are available on the USPA web site.

This is the history of what I call 'The Square1 BSR'.

USPA changed the definition of a student from 'cleared to JM himself' to 'obtain an A-license'.

Square1 requested a BSR waiver to the RSL requirement for students (under the new definition) that have been cleared to JM themselves, yet not yet obtained an A/license.

USPA denied the waiver request.

USPA added a NEW BSR that said (to the effect) that a student that was cleared for self-supervision, but that has not obtained an A-license may jump without an RSL if an appropriately rated USPA Instructor okays it and makes a notation in the jumper's logbook.

This worked for almost two years.

About two weeks ago, Square1 had a pow-wow with all the packers at Perris that pack their rental rigs. They briefed every packer on the RSL installation and assembly.

Do you want to know why Square1 had to do this?

It was because the instructors would not sign off anyone's logbook to jump without an RSL anymore. The potential liability that an Instructor could exposed himself to by doing this is HUGE.

You see when the BOD acts as a committee and grants a waiver, there is liability insurance that protects each BOD member from personal liability. This insurance does NOT cover instructors or S&TAs.

Add to this, that about the time the 'Square1 BSR' was passed by the BOD, a former student of Jim Wallace sued him, among others, for a low turn landing he (the former student) did. He had about 100-200 jumps at the time. He named his instructors in the lawsuit, claiming they didn't tell him not to turn close to the ground. [This is a bunch of bull].

Now with all this local crap going down in S. California, there is no way to expect an Instructor or S&TA to 'sign-off' any type of proficiency that is an exception to the industry standard rules.

This is sue-happy America. No instructor or S&TA, in his right mind, would deliberately open doors for lawsuits.

Lesson to be Learned that pertains to your suggestion:
Any type of Instructor or S&TA 'approval' (written or verbal) that grants the jumper an exception to the industry standards (aka the BSRs) will not fly with the Instructors or S&TAs in the field. You need to address the real world ramifications of this additional liability.

There is also another precedence in the rule that says 'students' (formerly known as novice jumpers) need an USPA Coach to jump with them.
Many S&TAs will not waive that rule (even on an individual basis) because of the potential liability.


Presuppositions

Quote

Minimum pull altitudes ensure that skydivers begin their deployment high enough to deal with a malfunction based on jump numbers.



This is bunk. All the minimum pull altitudes rules are non-rules. If you or anyone else busts through the minimum pull altitude, USPA, the DZO and every jumper everywhere still want you to pull - even if it's under the minimum altitude.

The *theory* that these altitudes save lives has no merit. If you look at the no/low pull fatalities from the 1980's and compare that to the 1990's, you will find a significant drop in no/low pull fatalities. This is directly attributable to the CYPRES, not any rule USPA or any other organization has in their books.

The CYPRES made a difference, not the rule book.

Quote

The lack of a WL BSR is allowing an increasing rate of injuries and fatalities.



I seriously doubt that a WL BSR will reduce fatalities. The errors jumpers make are because of loss of altitude awareness or not knowing the descent rate of their particular canopy under whatever condition lead to their demise.

Case in Point: The young jumper that low turned into the ground at Lodi recently, said 'Yeah I know - no low turns'. (paraphrase) Yet this guy did a low turn that killed him. Do you really think he did that on purpose?? No way. He turned *thinking* he had enough altitude. So he either did not know his altitude or did not know how much altitude he would lose in abc maneuver.

People are not deliberately crashing into the ground. They crash because they do not have enough information or use a corrective procedure that is not right.

This cannot be fixed by a rule. It can be fixed by the buddy system, people looking out for their friends - whatever you want to call it. We have a people problem, not a lack of rules problem.

Almost every line you wrote was also written in the mags, some 20 years ago about the new fangled PCs, wings and Sleds.

We need to really express our concerns to those that may not realize that they are in our their heads. We need to be persistent and unrelenting in some cases.

Read the letter in Nov 2003 Parachutist from Michael Rackett.

If it takes tough love by 'slapping someone across the head' then that is what we need to do.

Rules will not change people's behavior.


.
---
I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content.
Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Now with all this local crap going down in S. California, there is no way
> to expect an Instructor or S&TA to 'sign-off' any type of proficiency
> that is an exception to the industry standard rules.

A great many DZ's sign off people to do things that are exceptions to USPA rules. At our DZ we regularly allow people to make night jumps who have met the requirements for the B license but have not yet gotten the license itself. I've seen several S+TA's allow coaches without official ratings to jump with "students" (people who have graduated AFF but do not yet have an A license.) Many boogies I've been to will waive minimum jump requirements under certain circumstances ("you can only jump at tent 4" etc.) Such things are done regularly today.

Also, keep in mind that Socal is not neccessarily like the rest of the world. Perris, a place where there's a pretty good restaraunt and bar on the airport, where the DZO can buy an airliner because it's cool, where there are two large skydiving schools, a separate ultralight airport, and a wind tunnel, and is just outside LA - is not like most other DZ's.

>This is bunk. All the minimum pull altitudes rules are non-rules.

Surely you have seen Jack talk to people at Perris who have pulled too low. I have.

>If you or anyone else busts through the minimum pull altitude,
> USPA, the DZO and every jumper everywhere still want you to pull -
> even if it's under the minimum altitude.

What the heck are you talking about? Of course they still want you to pull. If this BSR was implemented, and someone violated it, everyone would still want you to land safely. In fact that's sorta the _point_ of the BSR.

>Case in Point: The young jumper that low turned into the ground at
> Lodi recently, said 'Yeah I know - no low turns'. (paraphrase) Yet
> this guy did a low turn that killed him. Do you really think he did
> that on purpose?? No way. He turned *thinking* he had enough
> altitude.

I would disagree. I strongly suspect he never even thought that. He had to turn and he knew exactly one way to do it; altitude never entered in to the equation. This is the story I've heard from a great many people - they need to turn, fearing injury or worse from a collision. They do this by burying a toggle because it's the only way they know to turn.

It's like a driver who locks up his brakes on an icy road. Does he do that thinking that locked wheels skidding on ice are a better way to stop? No, he just has never tried (or practiced) any other way to stop, so he does what he knows.

How do you solve that? Education. Most people you can reach voluntarily. Some you can't. Those are the ones who end up in the incident reports.

>People are not deliberately crashing into the ground. They crash
>because they do not have enough information or use a corrective
> procedure that is not right.

Agreed there.

>This cannot be fixed by a rule. It can be fixed by the buddy system,
> people looking out for their friends - whatever you want to call it. We
> have a people problem, not a lack of rules problem.

So far in my life I have met perhaps ten people who were simply immune to the buddy system. You could not tell them a damn thing about canopy flight. They knew it all. They were fine. I should give them a break. They could usually stand up their canopies. Their next canopy will be smaller and will land them better. I would be amazed if you have never met anyone like this.

Of them, one will never walk normally again. I grounded two of them and never saw them again. Two more broke their femurs. One of those people recently came in first in a PST slalom competition. He told me something interesting after that victory, along the lines of "I should have listened to you; it wasn't until after I almost killed myself that I upsized and learned to fly my canopy."

So how do you reach them, the people who simply will not listen until they break their femurs (or worse?) You can write them off, call them unaviodable fatalities and cripplings. You can prohibit them from jumping. Or you can put a system in place that lets them jump only if they get education. For me, 1) isn't a good solution. I've lost too many friends to that option. 2) is what I've done in the past; not a great solution either since they just go somewhere else. 3) is what we're talking about now.

Sure, getting every skydiver in the world to listen to their buddy would be nice. We could also cover every possible landing area in the US with six inches of foam rubber. Those two options are about as likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Your plan is pretty much the same as what you wrote awhile back.



Amazing that it is being well received this time around isn't it?

Quote

You know, you do have to consider the REAL world in these types of programs.



That is why I wrote what I did, the real world. Real injuries. Real deaths.

Quote

First, I'll give a mini-history lesson. This is relatively recent history and supporting documents are on the USPA web site.

Second, I'll try to explain some of the fallacies in your presuppositions.

Mini-History Lesson:

I am telling this in chronological order, but do not have the time to look up the exact dates that these events happened. You will find this information in the USPA BOD minutes over the past several years. They are available on the USPA web site.

This is the history of what I call 'The Square1 BSR'.

USPA changed the definition of a student from 'cleared to JM himself' to 'obtain an A-license'.

Square1 requested a BSR waiver to the RSL requirement for students (under the new definition) that have been cleared to JM themselves, yet not yet obtained an A/license.

USPA denied the waiver request.

USPA added a NEW BSR that said (to the effect) that a student that was cleared for self-supervision, but that has not obtained an A-license may jump without an RSL if an appropriately rated USPA Instructor okays it and makes a notation in the jumper's logbook.

This worked for almost two years.

About two weeks ago, Square1 had a pow-wow with all the packers at Perris that pack their rental rigs. They briefed every packer on the RSL installation and assembly.

Do you want to know why Square1 had to do this?

It was because the instructors would not sign off anyone's logbook to jump without an RSL anymore. The potential liability that an Instructor could exposed himself to by doing this is HUGE.



Greater than signing some off for their "A" license? Greater than singing someone off to be an AFFI?Don't want the responsibility? Don't get the rating.

Quote

You see when the BOD acts as a committee and grants a waiver, there is liability insurance that protects each BOD member from personal liability. This insurance does NOT cover instructors or S&TAs.



If you aren't willing to accept the responsibility and associated risk, then don't get the rating or accept the appointment. I declined an S &TA appointment not too long ago and have allowed my AFFI/E, S/L I/E, and TDM I/E ratings to expire.

Quote

Add to this, that about the time the 'Square1 BSR' was passed by the BOD, a former student of Jim Wallace sued him, among others, for a low turn landing he (the former student) did. He had about 100-200 jumps at the time. He named his instructors in the lawsuit, claiming they didn't tell him not to turn close to the ground. [This is a bunch of bull].

Now with all this local crap going down in S. California, there is no way to expect an Instructor or S&TA to 'sign-off' any type of proficiency that is an exception to the industry standard rules.



Which is why it should be an industry standard. Are you saying we can't do anything to stop the canopy incidents because of liability?

Quote

This is sue-happy America. No instructor or S&TA, in his right mind, would deliberately open doors for lawsuits.



Of course not, "I signed off J. Smith to a 1.3 WL from a 1.2 WL after demonstrating the ability to handle the higher wingloading following USPA's detailed training program and administered the canopy test according to USPA's detailed testing criteria."

Quote

Lesson to be Learned that pertains to your suggestion:
Any type of Instructor or S&TA 'approval' (written or verbal) that grants the jumper an exception to the industry standards (aka the BSRs) will not fly with the Instructors or S&TAs in the field. You need to address the real world ramifications of this additional liability.



Again, make it industry standard.

Quote

There is also another precedence in the rule that says 'students' (formerly known as novice jumpers) need an USPA Coach to jump with them.
Many S&TAs will not waive that rule (even on an individual basis) because of the potential liability.



Then don't be an S &TA if you can't do the job.


Quote

Presuppositions

Quote
Minimum pull altitudes ensure that skydivers begin their deployment high enough to deal with a malfunction based on jump numbers.


This is bunk. All the minimum pull altitudes rules are non-rules. If you or anyone else busts through the minimum pull altitude, USPA, the DZO and every jumper everywhere still want you to pull - even if it's under the minimum altitude.



Um, yes, I didn't say they didn't. Of course they still want me to pull. Busting the hard deck doesn't mean they don't want me to not pull. You don't think that the MPA BSR's were created to curb low-pulls? If, not, then what is their purpose?

Quote

The *theory* that these altitudes save lives has no merit. If you look at the no/low pull fatalities from the 1980's and compare that to the 1990's, you will find a significant drop in no/low pull fatalities. This is directly attributable to the CYPRES, not any rule USPA or any other organization has in their books.



So, pulling at 500 feet on a regular basis does not increase the risk of going in? And I thought having enough altitude to deal with any problems was a good idea. Heck, why not make Cypres's mandatory and abolish the MPA BSR's?


Quote

The CYPRES made a difference, not the rule book.



Then let's throw the rule book away…………..?

Quote
The lack of a WL BSR is allowing an increasing rate of injuries and fatalities.


Quote

I seriously doubt that a WL BSR will reduce fatalities. The errors jumpers make are because of loss of altitude awareness or not knowing the descent rate of their particular canopy under whatever condition lead to their demise.



The current system isn't. And this is more likely to happen on a faster canopy than a slower one.

Quote

Case in Point: The young jumper that low turned into the ground at Lodi recently, said 'Yeah I know - no low turns'. (paraphrase) Yet this guy did a low turn that killed him. Do you really think he did that on purpose?? No way. He turned *thinking* he had enough altitude. So he either did not know his altitude or did not know how much altitude he would lose in abc maneuver.



Exactly, he thought he had enough altitude. He didn't. On a larger canopy, he would have had enough altitude. Had he done "abc" maneuver dozens of times on a larger canopy, gotten some canopy control training before downsizing, he would have been much less likely to try "abc" maneuver as low on the smaller canopy as he had on the larger canopy.

Quote

People are not deliberately crashing into the ground. They crash because they do not have enough information or use a corrective procedure that is not right.



Exactly. And not downsizing too quickly and canopy training can correct both "not enough information" and using an incorrect procedure.

Quote

This cannot be fixed by a rule. It can be fixed by the buddy system, people looking out for their friends - whatever you want to call it. We have a people problem, not a lack of rules problem.



That isn't working and it isn't getting better, it is getting worse. So what is the solution to the "people problem"? Letters to parachutist? Not working.

Quote

Almost every line you wrote was also written in the mags, some 20 years ago about the new fangled PCs, wings and Sleds.



And they were right. Canopy incidents have far outpaced free fall incidents. And we still haven't kept pace with canopy development. We are always one step behind.

Quote

We need to really express our concerns to those that may not realize that they are in our their heads. We need to be persistent and unrelenting in some cases.



Doesn't work, as you example demonstrates. If they are determined not to listen, they won't. If they are determined to fly a canopy they shouldn't, they will. I found out today that someone I spent the entire time I repacked their reserve lecturing now has black and purple legs from their knees to their ankles. He was convinced I was wrong. He impacted on one side of a taxi way and landed on the other. Had he hit the taxi way, it would have turned out much different.

Quote

Read the letter in Nov 2003 Parachutist from Michael Rackett.

If it takes tough love by 'slapping someone across the head' then that is what we need to do.



That just pisses them off. Convinced that they are being held back and that others just don't want to be shown up. Then they go out and hook it in.

Quote

Rules will not change people's behavior.



I got 2 speeding tickets in 1995. None since. I don't speed anymore. Rules worked for me.

Rules will prevent someone from jumping too small of a canopy. Rules will ensure that people get the canopy control training they need.

Things are getting worse, not better. If nothing changes, it will get worse still. You don't like my idea? OK, I can live with that. What's your solution?

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is nothing new. DJan, experienced AFF instructor and regional director, broke her pelvis a few years back because she didn't know how to flat turn her (large) parachute. I knew a _lot_ of SL instructors who could barely exit stable, much less teach anyone how to do RW (which, according to the syllabus, they were supposed to do.) 90% of the time they were just tossing people out of airplanes, so they didn't need to know much else.



Whoa! I'm being brought up in this thread! You know why I broke my pelvis at 2400+ jumps? Because I learned to fly a canopy back when nobody was taught anything, and I didn't even *like* to fly a canopy. It was a necessary adjunct to freefall. So, in essence, I really never learned to fly it. I learned to do what was safe and predictable, and never once (this is a true statement) flew in deep brakes with thousands of jumps. I just zoomed around to lose altitude, usually trying to stay out of the way of other canopies. Why? Because I wasn't canopy savvy and had too much experience and too many jumps for anybody to walk up to me and say anything about my lack of canopy awareness.

I was lucky. I didn't die, but I learned a very hard lesson: learn to fly your canopy in all circumstances and in all control modes *before* you need them. I am now a good canopy pilot, not great, I never will be an intuitive pilot. But I know what my front & rear risers do, what deep brakes will do, what situations call for me to do UP HIGH, not just before impact.

I would never have taken it upon myself to teach anybody canopy flight before my accident. In order to come back into the sport, I had to humbly admit to myself what I didn't know. I had to learn it at least well enough to keep from hurting myself that bad again, because I knew I would not survive another one of those. But now, guess what, I teach canopy control to newbies. Not advanced canopy flight, but survival skills that I didn't have then but now I do. The desire behind my eyes to save my friends from my fate helps them to listen to me.

Now, after reading all the WL Take 4 posts, I've wondered how Derek's ideas could be implemented. I believe that whatever happens, it must be gradual and incremental. A WL BSR doesn't fix things, it just makes a rule that tries to make people stop hurting themselves. Slow and steady, with lots of input from the jumpers. Isn't this just what USPA has begun to do with its new SIM recommendations?

And USPA did this because of your letters and emails to them. They recognized the need and put forth a recommendation that can take form through forums like this one.

***
DJan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>Therefore, I further propose the creation of the >>Canopy Instructor (CI) rating. A coach rating >>would be required to become a CI.

OK, so all CI's need a coach rating first. This sounds like it complies with the USPA requirement that you need a coach rating before getting anything else.

>>Also, a CI would not be working with pre “A” >>license students, but licensed skydivers, and >>don’t require the free-fall skills and teaching >>ability to teach advance canopy skills.

I don't understand this part. Since our CI has a coach rating he/she should be able to work with
jumpers that have finished AFF and are cleared for
solo status, heck according the the ISP a coach can
even to catagory F-H jumps now. Catagory F-H jumps have a canopy portion in the dive flow so I don't see the necessity for this restriction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't understand this part. Since our CI has a coach rating he/she should be able to work with
jumpers that have finished AFF and are cleared for
solo status, heck according the the ISP a coach can
even to catagory F-H jumps now. Catagory F-H jumps have a canopy portion in the dive flow so I don't see the necessity for this restriction.



It wouldn't be a restriction, they could work w/ pre-A license skydivers, but don't have too. They could focus only on canopy skills if they want to.

Wheather or not a CI has to be a Coach is one of the finer details I didn't put a lot of thought into.

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This cannot be fixed by a rule. It can be fixed by the buddy system, people looking out for their friends - whatever you want to call it. We have a people problem, not a lack of rules problem.



From another thrad:

Quote

I totally agree with you on this downsizing issue. I also believe that there are people out there such as myself that would rather leave the sport than put 500 jumps on a boring canopy.



Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd keep the coach requirement. This is the "gateway" to all other ratings now, so you'd probably get a better reception from the USPA with this requirement. It also insures that the CI has been evaluated for basic teaching skills.

If you can't get a coach rating (which only requires a "C" license) you probably shouldn't be teaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


If you can't get a coach rating (which only requires a "C" license) you probably shouldn't be teaching.


I believe you intended "B" license with 100 jumps minimum and not C.

I also agree with the current USPA requirement where all new instructor ratings require the coaches’ ticket first. To say that the C/I does not need the coaches rating is surley going to lead the Wing Loading BSR to its death before seeing S&TA committee.

HOOKnswoop needs to be clarify his C/I rating.
Memento Mori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

HOOKnswoop needs to be clarify his C/I rating.



I have purposelly left things incomplete. I had no intentions of designing a CICC, exact canopy training course for each license, specific criteria to exceed the table, etc. That would all have to be worked out. I am trying to get the concept worked out.

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0