WL BSR, take 4?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

it looks as if even some very experienced sky divers and canopy pilots have been making as many fatal decisions as of late as the "low timers"

WL regulations unsettle me in so many ways....even now that I no longer risk violating them as most frequently proposed

* we should not automatically exclude jumpers of any experience level from WL BSRs. Dozens of incidents demonstrate that neither jump numbers nor canopy sizes are a panacea for bad decisions. This suggests WL vs jump #s is a poor indicator of risk.

assuming anyway it is a good indicator of risk,

* risk is an ethereal quantity that is difficult if not impossible to regulate in free individuals. Safety is an economic good, and the amount that people are willing to trade away is not wholly dependent on whether they can fly little canopies -- the word of the day is substitute goods. Even if there is a reason you or I prefer death by another means to death by landing injury, it is wrong to impose our preferences on others. Perverse / morbid, imo.

* applying arbitrary WL standards such as all those I have seen proposed in this forum will inevitably have unanticipated consequences. It would affect canopy designs, canopy sales, USPA membership, etc.

Three DZ's out of how many in the USPA? If this is willy nilly, I'm all for DZ's making their own rules. If they all come up with a uniform WL criterion I promise to personally scratch my head. Insofar as this is the status quo I am rather pleased with it (ie, no formal restriction almost everywhere)-- please not read this to mean I like it when people get hurt, it is only a reflection of my lack of confidence in measures such as this proposal...I wish with all my means that nobody gets hurt or killed. Back to the point, If my and all the other DZ's nearby decide on ruthless and arbitrary strictures I believe that is their privilege--I have confidence in them and their decisions about their own operations.

Another thing that bugs me is I perceive a strong NIMBY quotient in people's responses. "The problem isn't me, it's the other guy." "I like your proposal but tweak the numbers so my current canopy is on the good side of my jump numbers" etc. I don't think any class of jumpers is immune from the hazards of small canopies and I think the assumptions belied by NIMBY arguments are dangerous.

Lastly, the analogy with Mario Andretti and formula racecars is a great one -- Not even Mario Andretti is allowed to drive racecars on public roads. Only on closed tracks under carefully controlled conditions are they operated. Is this what we want to impose on our swoopers?

I think the instructor rating + curriculum is a good idea, tho. I think it might work without restrictions on canopies a jumper can buy / sell / use.

nathaniel

always a contrarian, now with 50% more jumps!

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Zenister 0]

Quote

I think the instructor rating + curriculum is a good idea, tho. I think it might work without restrictions on canopies a jumper can buy / sell / use.

hear hear!

increased education is of benefit to everyone. Increased restriction only takes away from the individual.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

it looks as if even some very experienced sky divers and canopy pilots have been making as many fatal decisions as of late as the "low timers"

WL regulations unsettle me in so many ways....even now that I no longer risk violating them as most frequently proposed

* we should not automatically exclude jumpers of any experience level from WL BSRs. Dozens of incidents demonstrate that neither jump numbers nor canopy sizes are a panacea for bad decisions. This suggests WL vs jump #s is a poor indicator of risk.

always a contrarian, now with 50% more jumps!

There is a perceived correlation with risk because incidents involving low jump high WL folks are plastered all over the internet by certain individuals, with comments like "I told you....", whereas incidents involving high jump or low WL don't get this attention. This is selective use of data, a real no-no in science.

We STILL don't know that this proposal is tackling the real problem.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

There is a perceived correlation with risk because incidents involving low jump high WL folks are plastered all over the internet by certain individuals, with comments like "I told you....", whereas incidents involving high jump or low WL don't get this attention. This is selective use of data, a real no-no in science.

We STILL don't know that this proposal is tackling the real problem.

The proposal will, eventually, affect all jumpers through the education. It does not neglect the incidents of more experienced jumpers with lower WL'. The concept is to teach all jumpers canopy control beyond what they receive in AFF and prevent those that want to downsize too aggressively from doing so. What it won't do is stop all canopy control incidents. Nothing will do that. How can more education be bad? How can preventing someone without the experience, skill, and knowledge from downsizing to a WL that will likely result in an incident bad?

The problem is two-fold. Lower experienced skydivers flying at too high of a WL and high experienced skydivers that fly an appropriate canopy that never received canopy training beyond their AFF training.

The proposal is two-fold. 1) Reign in the fringe that are downsizing too quickly and educated everyone.

Then there is the incidents that WL or experience simply wouldn't have helped. They had a bad day. They made a poor decision. They got 'theshowmustgoon-itus'. They tried to impress someone. Etc.

Derek

[encinoadam 0]

When we last talked about this back in June, I wondered if anyone would ever do anything besides gripe on here that we "need a wingloading BSR." Hook has taken it to a good level. And, here is why.

First, he has a concrete plan. And second, that plan addresses concerns beyond simply increasing wing size. A square parachute is a wing. Dip that wing, and you will hit the ground quite hard. I don't care how much wing you have. We are reminded of this every time someone with a large parachute or someone with plenty of jumps gets hurt or dies on landing.

Injuries and deaths during landing result primarily from one of two problems... either too little wing, or not enough education (and yes, sometimes plenty of both).

As a reminder, I was flying about a 1.1 wingloading (Spectre 150) at around 140 jumps when I turned low and drilled myself into the ground. Just the wingloading BSR would not have prevented this, because I would have qualified at 100 jumps to have this wingloading.

Mostly out of luck (and yes, probably also because I did not have a smaller canopy), I did not break anything (working on getting the video!). I was not showing off, and I was not trying to swoop. I was trying to land in a particular spot, and turned low... not realizing I did not have enough altitude to do it. I had 139 perfect or near-perfect landings prior to that. I'm shocked that I did this, since I am a pretty conservative skydiver.

While I obviously received *some* canopy training and knew about low turns beforehand, I did not know how low was "too low." The part I like about Hook's proposal is the Canopy Instructor part... the education... the dedicated canopy training. So, even if we don't agree on the root cause of the accidents, this fix will apply to both. And obviously, having an appropriate wingloading at the same time will certainly not hurt... and can only help.

If I am asked to vote on this wingloading BSR, I'll give it my thumbs up. I hope you take it beyond this forum.

ac

(still living in America, where I can post *whatever* I want to. ain't it cool?)

[Ron 7]

Quote

increased education is of benefit to everyone

Yep, but a large number of people are not seeking education thinking they are more gifted than the others out there.

Quote

Increased restriction only takes away from the individual.

I disagree. The simple fact is under any plan that I would suggest there would be a way for the people who really are capable to be able to fly high WL early. They would have to PROVE they can handle it, not just take a class, or as it is now just have the cash to buy the canopy.

If you can past the "test" then you can do what you want. If you can't pass the "test" then you have no buisness under a smaller canopy.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If you can past the "test" then you can do what you want. If you can't pass the "test" then you have no buisness under a smaller canopy.

Provided that someone is available to conduct the test, and willing to pass anyone. Will there be people and DZs willing to put their name down certifying someone to exceed the now established norms?

[Ron 7]

Quote

Provided that someone is available to conduct the test, and willing to pass anyone. Will there be people and DZs willing to put their name down certifying someone to exceed the now established norms?

They do it now with graduating students. No real difference.

And the test I have pitched could be held by a whoffo that knows nothing about the sport.

Its the PRO test. 10 standing landings in a 30 foot circle declared in a row....With you spotting the plane. Get 9 and miss the 10th? Start over at #1.

Simple to give test that if you can pass shows you know how to fly a canopy.

Really simple.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Hooknswoop 19]

So the situation is:

1) There is not enough education past the A license

2) People are hammering in under good canopies that are too small for them.

3) A rule that limits wing loadings across the board based on jump numbers or licenses is unfair to those that are more capable than their jump numbers suggest.

4) A rule that allows for exceptions for better than average pilots requires some sort of test and test administrator. No one will want to accept the responsibility for signing someone off to a higher wing loading, Which effectively makes it a rule without exceptions. It has been said that at least one jumper would rather quit skydiving that be forced to jump a larger canopy. If they can handle the canopy, they should be allowed to jump it. If they can't, they should not. A WL BSR must be flex-able enough to allow those that are capable to exceed the BSR.

The result: People fly canopies outside their abilities and even conservative canopies pilots do not receive enough education to help make them a safe canopy pilot. The only thing stopping someone that is jumping too small of a canopy from jumping it is first being identified before they are a statistic by the S & TA, being grounded, having that grounding backed up by the DZO (who stands to lose money because of it), and having this grounding enforced by any other DZ they may go to (where the DZO stands to lose money). We allow people to jump too small of canopies (moral liability) because we are unwilling to accept the liability of allowing those that can handle the more aggressive wing loadings to do so. By not accepting responsibility we are allowing it to happen, for which we should be ashamed.

It is time for USPA to do it's job: "Keep skydivers skydiving" and out of the hospital or morgue. We are letting down skydivers by not making available the canopy training that is out there. We are letting skydivers down by not preventing them from jumping canopies they shouldn't be. I don't expect the incidents to drop to zero, but they can easily be lowered through a WL BSR and education.

Derek

[Ron 7]

Quote

1) There is not enough education past the A license

2) People are hammering in under good canopies that are too small for them.

3) A rule that limits wing loadings across the board based on jump numbers or licenses is unfair to those that are more capable than their jump numbers suggest.

4) A rule that allows for exceptions for better than average pilots requires some sort of test and test administrator. No one will want to accept the responsibility for signing someone off to a higher wing loading, Which effectively makes it a rule without exceptions. It has been said that at least one jumper would rather quit skydiving that be forced to jump a larger canopy. If they can handle the canopy, they should be allowed to jump it. If they can't, they should not. A WL BSR must be flex-able enough to allow those that are capable to exceed the BSR.

I agree with everything but

Quote

No one will want to accept the responsibility for signing someone off to a higher wing loading, Which effectively makes it a rule without exceptions.

Instructors are signing of people now to progress in levels, and to jump by themselves....Same amount of risk (some would say more). Its a matter of the way people think about it.

Quote

It has been said that at least one jumper would rather quit skydiving that be forced to jump a larger canopy

He could jump whatever he wanted as long as he can PROVE he can handle it. And the same type of people said they would quit skydiving when USPA put in Minumum pull altitudes. I bet very few did, and they are free to quit if they want.

But if they can PROVE they can handle the higher WL's then they would be allowed to jump them...There is no test to waive the Pull Altitude.

I think its just a case of some folks know damn good and well that they could not pass the performance tests and want to jump small canopies even if they can't handle it.

And then there are the others that think it is below them to have to prove they can handle it since they are "gifted" (Just like everyone else).

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[encinoadam 0]

I disagree about the Pro rating test. The pro rating is appropriate for being allowed to perform a demo, because the landing area could be quite small. So, good accuracy counts here.

For downsizing a canopy, well, accuracy has its place, but it misses the bigger issue of people performing low turns. The Pro test would allow anyone to pass with accuracy skills... but the fact is, many people won't pass it with a large canopy... let alone a small one.

Does that make them not ready for a smaller canopy? No, it means they need canopy accuracy training.

Again, accuracy has its place. I'm not discounting that. But we need something that will help people learn about canopy traffic, intentional and unintentional low turns, flat turns, and PLFs if all else goes wrong. Accuracy doesn't provide that, and I don't think you'll find a lot of support for a test of that nature. Just my thoughts.

ac

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Does that make them not ready for a smaller canopy?

Yes. It makes them not ready for a smaller canopy.

Quote

No, it means they need canopy accuracy training.

If you can't land your big canopy where you want to, how are you going to land a smaller, faster canopy where you NEED to?

There's more to accuracy than just landing on the DZ.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

How can preventing someone without the experience, skill, and knowledge from downsizing to a WL that will likely result in an incident bad?

Quote

The proposal is two-fold. 1) Reign in the fringe that are downsizing too quickly

Who are the fringe? What defines too quickly? It's useless knowledge after-the-fact, and it's probably also useless knowledge before-the-fact if we're relying on WL and jump numbers. Need we recall that the numbers of all such proposals have been pulled from a vacuum by well-intentioned but data-blind individuals?

Whence this fixation with inexperienced jumpers? I confess a similar fascination with jumpers newer to the sport than I...new-kid-in-town syndrome. It's deeply ingrained in our culture.... If this is the true basis for WL BSR proposals' exemption of the experienced there is no shame in admitting it.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Who are the fringe?

The skydivers that exceed the limits and cannot demonstrate the ability to handle that high of a WL at that low of jump numbers.

Quote

What defines too quickly?

Exceeding the WL table w/o the ability to safely do so.

Quote

It's useless knowledge after-the-fact, and it's probably also useless knowledge before-the-fact if we're relying on WL and jump numbers. Need we recall that the numbers of all such proposals have been pulled from a vacuum by well-intentioned but data-blind individuals?

USPA opposed mandatory incident reports, so accurate data is not, and will not be available. This is in spite of the FAA believing that just such a system could prevent future incidents. (I believe that the museum money would have better served USPA members by used to create an incident reporting system.) Let's say the table is too conservative, then more people would be required to demonstrate the ability to exceed it. No big deal and it can be adjusted if that is found to be the case. If the table turns out to not be restrictive enough, then again it can be adjusted. A pilot program, similar to how the ISP was researched, would bee the testing ground for a WL BSR.

Quote

Whence this fixation with inexperienced jumpers? I confess a similar fascination with jumpers newer to the sport than I...new-kid-in-town syndrome. It's deeply ingrained in our culture.... If this is the true basis for WL BSR proposals' exemption of the experienced there is no shame in admitting it.

The combination of inexperience and high WL's are a deadly combination. The idea of the WL BSR is too allow a newer jumper time to gain experience in flying a canopy and experience in choosing an appropriate WL. This allows them to survive long enough to become experienced jumpers. Along the way, the education also ensures their longevity in the sport.

The current system does not work. The proposal is a change to the system. If a pilot program demonstrates that it doesn't work, then it's back to the drawing board, but a fix must be found and implemented.

Derek

[Zenister 0]

Quote

The current system does not work.

honestly i applaud your efforts, but what basis do you really have for saying this? how many people have (and are) successfully downsizing and learning to fly their canopies 'ahead of the numbers'? granted the current injury rate is certainly ugly but we still have no real indication of the successful end of the scale and you are still proposing adding unnecessary (for those who succeed) restrictions, testing and hoops to jump thru for the sake of a handful who fail? to define a problem you need to look at the entire scope, not just the low end....

education, not regulation.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[PhreeZone 15]

If you want to see the impact that restrictions can have on reducing the injury count call one of the DZ's that have the rules.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

The current system does not work.

Quote

honestly i applaud your efforts, but what basis do you really have for saying this?

The number of incidents I hear about and have seen from people obviously jumping too small of a canopy. I would really like to have data to support this, but, like I mentioned, the proposed change to Part 105 that would have required incident reporting was shot down by the USPA.

Quote

how many people have (and are) successfully downsizing and learning to fly their canopies 'ahead of the numbers'?

They are a lot and the skydivers that are ahead of the table safely would therefore have no problem demonstrating it. Also, they would be required to demonstrate it unless they downsized again (over the WL table) before having their D license. I really do not want to inconvenience or penalize a safe canopy pilot regardless of their WL.

(

Quote

The current system does not work.

)

Q:

Quote

honestly i applaud your efforts, but what basis do you really have for saying this?

A:

Quote

granted the current injury rate is certainly ugly

Answered your own question.

Quote

but we still have no real indication of the successful end of the scale and you are still proposing adding unnecessary (for those who succeed) restrictions, testing and hoops to jump thru for the sake of a handful who fail?

Small price to pay to curb an "ugly" accident rate. Isn't it worth it to save the lives of a handful of people? If not then how many lives must we lose a year to canopy incidents and how many injuries from canopy incidents must there be before the inconvenience is worth it?

Quote

to define a problem you need to look at the entire scope, not just the low end....

I am looking at the entire scope. Keeping low experience jumpers off high WL canopies until they are ready and canopy training that will benefit all experience levels.

Quote

education, not regulation.

That would be great if we could get it to work. How can education prevent a jumper with 50 jumps from hammering in under a Stiletto 120 loaded at 1.6:1?

Education can't replace experience. Education can't replace the inability to demonstrate ability.

I am a licensed pilot. You can't put me in a classroom , educate me on the Lear jet, then expect me to go fly one. I'll crash, especially if there is a problem. If I don't crash, it would not because of the classroom education. I would definitely crash if I went out without any education and tried to fly a Lear jet. Fortunately, there is required training, required experience, and required tests before a pilot is allowed to fly such a high performance aircraft. They still crash, but not nearly as often as they would without those requirements.

Derek

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Small price to pay to curb an "ugly" accident rate. Isn't it worth it to save the lives of a handful of people? If not then how many lives must we lose a year to canopy incidents and how many injuries from canopy incidents must there be before the inconvenience is worth it?

honestly i dont know, we need to know the top end to be able to define that.

200 injuries and 30 fatalities out of 30,000 possible incidents is nothing.
Where as 200 and 30 out of 3000 is much more significant and warrants more attention, but i cannot sanction any measure that relies on the "if it saves one life its worth it" argument....

i sincerely wish we had real numbers, but for a number of complex and varied reasons, many having to do with legal liability, we do not and yet you are proposing a system that could very easily set every instructor who is willing to sign someone off 'ahead of the curve' up for further liability???

how many CI's could potentially become 'unreasonable' once the first expensive lawsuit is filed? how many jumpers would then 'shop around' until they found someone who would sign them off??? how then would things be different?

the availability of the canopy course is a significant. which those who want to learn will take because it is there and available and encouraged by their AFFIs without making it a requirement...

some people will not cannot learn until they are hurt. It is unfair to punish (by unnecessary restriction) the (likely majority) who can and do learn without draconian measures for the sake of those handful who will not.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Small price to pay to curb an "ugly" accident rate. Isn't it worth it to save the lives of a handful of people? If not then how many lives must we lose a year to canopy incidents and how many injuries from canopy incidents must there be before the inconvenience is worth it?

Quote

honestly i dont know, we need to know the top end to be able to define that.

Since we will never have these numbers, we shouldn't do anything? Since we can't prove that a problem exists through statistics, a problem doesn't exist?

Quote

200 injuries and 30 fatalities out of 30,000 possible incidents is nothing.
Where as 200 and 30 out of 3000 is much more significant and warrants more attention, but i cannot sanction any measure that relies on the "if it saves one life its worth it" argument....

How many lives and how many injuries before you would support it?

Quote

i sincerely wish we had real numbers, but for a number of complex and varied reasons, many having to do with legal liability, we do not and yet you are proposing a system that could very easily set every instructor who is willing to sign someone off 'ahead of the curve' up for further liability???

It wouldn't set them up for further liability if all they did was administer a test per USPA's written guidelines, and allowed a higher WL per USPA's written guidelines. This would be the same as signing off an A license card or PRO rating card per USPA's written guidelines. Same liability. There are waiver-able BSR on the books now.

Quote

how many CI's could potentially become 'unreasonable' once the first expensive lawsuit is filed? how many jumpers would then 'shop around' until they found someone who would sign them off??? how then would things be different?

How many is based upon their integrity, something I can't predict. Integrity is currently the only thing preventing S&TA's and I/E's from signing off people's rating renewals, licenses, PRO ratings, etc that haven't met the requirements.

Quote

the availability of the canopy course is a significant. which those who want to learn will take because it is there and available and encouraged by their AFFIs without making it a requirement...

And those that think they don't need the training, or don't realize they need it are the ones that especially do and won't get the education.

Quote

some people will not cannot learn until they are hurt. It is unfair to punish (by unnecessary restriction) the (likely majority) who can and do learn without draconian measures for the sake of those handful who will not.

It is also unfair to increase membership dues or possibly lose insurance coverage for everyone because of a few incidents. But that is exactly what is about to happen. The actions of a few impact everyone. If someone can't learn until they are hurt, they really don't belong on a small canopy. We should not let them learn by getting hurt. How many times must the same lesson be learned? How many hard cutaway were there before riser insert use became widespread? How many pre-mature deployments before no ROL's for free flying policies were implemented? The education would benefit everyone and demonstrating ability in order to exceed the table would not be a big inconvenience at all.

Derek

[PhreeZone 15]

>200 injuries and 30 fatalities out of 30,000 possible incidents is nothing.

Is this the same attitude that the military has in "acceptible casuality" projections?

There needs to be sometihng done, formal or at the DZ level. I know I'm going to be speaking to my S&TA about the possibility of looking at something like this for the up coming seasons and I'm sure that other places are currently examining something too.

If a place like Perris, Eloy or Crosskeys were to adopt it you can bet lots of smaller DZ's would be on board too. Scary to think that now instead of having a set thing you are leaving it up to DZ's to create their own rules in something they may know nothing about.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[encinoadam 0]

As I said in my post, accuracy is important. But you are kidding yourself if you think even half the people you know could pass the Pro rating test. The Pro rating is difficult to get... which is why they require 500 jumps and which is why not too many people have it. You want to reduce injuries? Go ahead and implement a test that was designed for fairly experienced skydivers, and make beginner skydivers take it.

Watch how many people you prevent from skydiving (or how many people quit in disgust). The fact is, most people out there *are* safe at current wingloadings. I'm supporting the idea of education and even the BSR, but don't push it. You will see little to no support for making people pass the Pro rating test in order to downsize. Nine passes and one fail, and they have to start all over again??

Number one, I guarantee you it will never happen. And number two, if it happens, have fun out at your dz, all by your lonesome.

ac

[andrewstewart 0]

Quote

As I said in my post, accuracy is important. But you are kidding yourself if you think even half the people you know could pass the Pro rating test. The Pro rating is difficult to get... which is why they require 500 jumps and which is why not too many people have it. You want to reduce injuries? Go ahead and implement a test that was designed for fairly experienced skydivers, and make beginner skydivers take it.

Watch how many people you prevent from skydiving (or how many people quit in disgust). The fact is, most people out there *are* safe at current wingloadings. I'm supporting the idea of education and even the BSR, but don't push it. You will see little to no support for making people pass the Pro rating test in order to downsize. Nine passes and one fail, and they have to start all over again??

Number one, I guarantee you it will never happen. And number two, if it happens, have fun out at your dz, all by your lonesome.

I have to say, I agree entirely with this sentiment. The pragmatic reality is that the social and political dimension that always exists means that the proposed rules would only rarely be enforced.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Provided that someone is available to conduct the test, and willing to pass anyone. Will there be people and DZs willing to put their name down certifying someone to exceed the now established norms?

They do it now with graduating students. No real difference.

Its the PRO test. 10 standing landings in a 30 foot circle declared in a row....With you spotting the plane. Get 9 and miss the 10th? Start over at #1.

They graduate students to a given norm of what passing is: good body position, altitude awareness, control, ability to do maneuvers. But this proposal is about signing people off to go beyond what is considered appropriate wing loading. It's not the same thing at all, particularly in a legal sense.

I'm not convinced accuracy is the best test either, but the real question on my mind is: how many jumps on that canopy would they end up doing before you sign off that they're safe to jump that canopy? If they made it to the 10th jump without injury, it's a possible indication that they can fly it with a reasonable level of risk. I would also hope that the first few flights on a new smaller canopy the focus would be on landing softly rather than right on target.

Without causing a nasty drift in the subject, the reason I ask about the feasible availability is that other regulations are created with the intent or result of being window dressing. 100lb women who would probably be safer with their car's airbag turned off, but good luck finding a shop that will actually do the authorized modification. And when gun control advocates suggest a safety certification at a range done by a sheriff, what they really are doing is raising the bar out of reach, because the cops don't have time to be doing this and the result will be a months long waiting period.

[billvon 2,396]

>how many CI's could potentially become 'unreasonable' once the
>first expensive lawsuit is filed?

A few, just as a few DZO's become unreasonable after they are sued. But only a few.

Several years ago, a skydiver sued a rig manufacturer out of business. Did all the other rig manufacturers stop making rigs? Or stop using grommets? (which was part of the cause of the fatality the suit concerned) Nope - they kept making rigs, perhaps paying more attention to setting the grommets than they did before.

And when a new jumper dies, and their family goes after anyone and everyone who had anything to do with the jump (including the instructor who signed them off for their A) why don't instructors refuse to sign off A-license jumpers any more? Because it's rare, and most instructors realize that enforcing the BSR's on A-license signoffs helps PREVENT fatalities and the resulting lawsuits.

The best way to prevent lawsuits is prevent canopy fatalities. Arguing that more fatalities would better provided no one would bear any responsibility holds no water with me.

>how many jumpers would then 'shop
> around' until they found someone who would sign them off???

Probably a lot, and if you look long and hard, you can find people to sign them off, just as you can for any other signoff in the sport, from A-license requirements to PRO ratings. In most cases it's going to be easier to just make the jumps and prove you can do it.

> how then would things be different?

DZO's and S+TA's would have a tool to use to get people the training they need, and 90% of the time it would be enforced.

>some people will not cannot learn until they are hurt.

I don't believe that you cannot reduce the risk of jumping small canopies without a steady stream of inuries and deaths to scare people. That's not true in many other parts of skydiving. I know many skydivers who have been "held back" artificially (i.e. not allowed on loads, not allowed to jump certain canopies etc) until they have the experience to be able to do the event safely. This works very well when someone else (i.e. a bigway organizer) with experience can make the call on whether they are ready - and most people who really want to do bigways learn to fly well and become ready. They do not need to be nearly killed to learn this sort of skill, since there is a means to keep them out of the more dangerous activity until they are ready.

Flying a small canopy safely is a skill, no harder to learn than doing big-ways. Do you know anyone who _needed_ to break their back before they learned to do big ways safely?

>It is unfair to punish (by unnecessary restriction) the (likely majority)
> who can and do learn without draconian measures for the sake of
>those handful who will not.

No more than I am punished by being forced to pull at 2000 feet. I've proven that I can safely pull at 250 feet; still I support the 2000 foot rule because it saves lives. And the proposed canopy BSR is far, far more lenient than the 2000 foot rule, since it would be easy to opt out if you can fly your canopy well.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

They graduate students to a given norm of what passing is: good body position, altitude awareness, control, ability to do maneuvers. But this proposal is about signing people off to go beyond what is considered appropriate wing loading. It's not the same thing at all, particularly in a legal sense.

Look at it as 2 tables. The second one for those that don't meet the jump requirements, but have demonstrated the ability. A CI would simply be following published guidelines. If they demonstrate the ability following these guidelines, they are signed off. If there is a lawsuit, the defense is industry guidelines were followed. i.e. he had X number of jumps so he had to demonstrate abc before being allowed to jump y wingloading, which he did. standard practice. If it were written as 2 tables, and not one table with waivers, wouldn't that eliminate the liability, or at least keep it the same as signing off licenses, etc?

I can't believe there is sentiment that we would rather do nothing than risk liability. Is seems that if liabaility is a real concern, then that only affects allowing people to exceed the table. What is more important, the percieved liability or the flexibility of allowing people to exceed 'table1 of the WL BSR'. Are we faced with the choice of either increased liability or a non-flexable WL BSR? (Or, of course, the status quo).

Derek