WL BSR, take 4?

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Watch how many people you prevent from skydiving (or how many people quit in disgust).

Way back in the day, everyone jumped "boring" canopies because that's all that was available. I don't remember anyone I knew quitting the sport because their canopy was boring.

An accuracy test like the PRO test prior to downsizing would not prevent anyone from skydiving, and if someone chooses to quit jumping because they are limited by their own skill set to jumping something that they consider "boring" that's fine with me.

I see Ron's point, and I agree with it. If a jumper can't land their current canopy in a 30 foot circle standing up every time they are in need of additional training and additional experience under the canopy they are currently flying (or perhaps even - gasp! - under a bigger or less aggressive canopy). Five years ago PD suggested that a jumper be capable of landing their current canopy on a beer can in the landing area every time before jumping a Stiletto - and that's still what those with a lot of experience on high performance canopies would suggest. Accuracy skills aren't important when everything is going well and you're landing in the big, open main landing area; accuracy skills - under the canopy you're jumping now - are important when things go to shit and you're having to pick where you want to land in a less-than-ideal landing area - ie off dropzone - that may be full of obstacles (cars, fences, powerlines, light poles).

Derek, good job. I'm behind this proposal because it makes sense. It doesn't limit those who are capable of handling higher wingloadings/more aggressive canopy types at low jump numbers. It assures that every new jumper receives basic canopy control training (ie survival skill training) beyond what is taught in their student progression, and it assures that those who want to downsize receive additional training prior to doing so.

But what about jumpers like me? Jumpers who've done a thousand jumps over 10+ years, who's canopy control training ended in the first jump course, and who never "got" canopy control under big boring F111 canopies much less under the faster, smaller canopies we're flying now. We're out there, and as others have said we are a part of the problem. Some of us have been smart enough to place wingloading limits on ourselves. Some of us are smart enough to seek out remedial canopy control training. But not all of us are that smart, and when shit happens to one of us we are featured in the incident reports just like the 50 jump wonder who hooked in under a 1.3 wingloading. And we're featured there for the same reason - we were jumping something that was too much for us to handle when the shit hit the fan.

I can understand the need to "grandfather in" those who already hold licenses and/or who are already exceeding the proposed wingloading limits at the time that a BSR is enacted... but I'd like to see some form of required basic canopy control training (survival skills) or testing (perhaps similar to a BFR for a pilot) for every jumper, regardless of number of jumps, regardless of what canopy and what wingloading we are flying.

Currently all I'm required to do to keep my D license current is jump once every six months and send USPA some money once every twelve months. That's a joke, imho. Two jumps a year does not make me a safe and current skydiver under a big, boring canopy, much less under the canopies most D license holders are jumping. I'd support an annual "flight review" focusing on survival skills for every jumper, regardless of license, regardless of experience, regardless of number of jumps in the past year, as a part of keeping a license current.

I agree wholeheartedly with those saying that education is the answer. For those speaking against this proposal because it would "regulate" canopy choice, for those who feel the "buddy system" is working fine - what are you doing to make the education that you say is the answer available to every jumper at your home dz, whether they have 10 jumps or 5000? How many "buddies" have you worked with on canopy control? Have you talked to your dzo about the need to have basic canopy control training available? imho if you aren't walking the walk, you shouldn't be talking the talk.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Watch how many people you prevent from skydiving (or how many people quit in disgust).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Way back in the day, everyone jumped "boring" canopies because that's all that was available. I don't remember anyone I knew quitting the sport because their canopy was boring.

Anybody who complains about "boring" canopies should be made to jump a few T-10 jumps...... That will teach them...

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[encinoadam 0]

I disagree with making everyone pass the Pro rating test every time they want to downsize. And, supposing someone's accuracy is never quite good enough to pass that test. Should they stay on a 290 forever? Are you willing to bear responsibility for what happens to them when they back up into a fence in high winds? I doubt it. That is an individual's personal decision... it's a grown-up decision... we make the choices, we live it. I'm not talking about Darwinism. I'm talking about making the best choices we can with the information we have. Keeping someone on a super-huge canopy for life won't work. Can you imagine how this would go?

Here's how. Someone wants to downsize from their 290 to a 270. Or, perhaps they can skip one and go to a 250 (would *that* be allowed?). In any case, where does this person get a canopy they can jump ten times? Who is going to hook up the smaller one, then the bigger one, then the smaller one again, in between declared "accuracy jumps" and fun jumps. What about the weekend jumper that makes 2-3 jumps per week? Worse, where do they get the canopy from? Perris, sure, no problem. Most DZs don't have such an intricate rental program. Worse yet, where do they get each container for each main they use? Even worse than that, now jumpers are jumping gear that doesn't fit them properly... especially at smaller DZs. This plan has catastrophe written all over it.

And, even *still* worse yet, jumpers are still free to drill themselves into the ground. And, they risk doing it while jumping a canopy that they are trying to get signed off on. I know... I did it while under an appropriate wingloading... just trying to land for accuracy. At least that was my decision... but it would have really sucked if I did it because someone else was "making me" do it.

Enforcment is another issue. How do you know how much my weight has changed? Will there be an annual "weighing in?" How do you know I haven't silently downsized without your knowledge? The fact is, you won't know. In an already difficult industry, you want DZO's to start kicking people off the DZ, when they don't represent a danger but don't happen to pass your arbitrary test? No way. It won't happen.

And, did you see the results for the last poll regarding wingloading? I'm sure you did. Only 34% supported it. I've asked a number of skydivers about this... and none of them supported a wingloading BSR, period. And you want to make it worse by applying this arbitrary test that most people won't pass under their current canopy? The support will drop from 34% to about 10%. And all I can say is, good luck. Because, luck is the only thing you will have going for you in trying to pass the BSR.

You're taking a very well thought out plan by Hook and diluting it into something that almost no one will support. That diminishes the possibility of passing it in any form. If you think I am wrong, ask around. Start another poll. I know that your heart is in the right place. You are trying to keep people off of the small canopies that injure and kill. But I submit that you are going about it the wrong way. Just my thoughts.

ac

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Are you willing to bear responsibility for what happens to them when they back up into a fence in high winds?

Since any proposal will affect only licensed jumpers, that wouldn't be anyone else's fault other than the jumper who decided to jump in high winds. Smart jumpers don't jump when the winds are high enough that they'll be backing up on final, regardless of the wingloading they are jumping.

Quote

Someone wants to downsize from their 290 to a 270. Or, perhaps they can skip one and go to a 250 (would *that* be allowed?). In any case, where does this person get a canopy they can jump ten times? Who is going to hook up the smaller one, then the bigger one, then the smaller one again, in between declared "accuracy jumps" and fun jumps.

As I understand what Ron is saying (and I could be way off what he means)... if someone is 290 out the door (ie at a 1.0 wingloading on a 290 sq ft canopy), then to fly a smaller canopy s/he would need to put that 290 in a 30 foot circle ten times before going to a smaller canopy. No unhooking and rehooking up required. (On a tangent - imho if a jumper isn't capable of changing out mains that are already on risers, they don't know enough about their gear)

I'm interpreting Ron's words as applying only to those who wish to load their canopies above the "recommended" wingloading for their experience level.

Quote

Worse yet, where do they get each container for each main they use?

Why would they need a different container? Last time I checked I could safely put at least one size smaller main in my container than what it was built for...

Quote

You're taking a very well thought out plan by Hook and diluting it into something that almost no one will support.

I am? No, I'm trying to reinforce what I interpreted Ron saying - that accuracy is a whole lot more important than a lot of people think it is.

[geronimo 1]

>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.
>
And at many other dzs, these things are not done - specifically because of liability reasons. For some reason, I get to hear both sides of this. The jumpers that are denied the exception and the S&TA that won't grant the exception because his house is potentially on the line.

>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.

no comment

>
>>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.

So you agree that it is a people problem.

>
>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.
>
>
>
>
>Hooknswoop
>Moderator
>
>
>
>Nov 5, 2003, 7:21 PM
>
>Post #43 of 79 (259 views)
>
>Re: [geronimo] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post
> 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?

Or maybe people are tired of reading the same thing over and over again?

There is a difference in signing someone off for reaching a milestone that everyone has to achieve versus giving someone a bypass to a BSR. You apparently do not understand the difference. I hear from jumpers on both sides of this. The jumpers that want a waiver complain about an S&TA or I (depending on the reg) not giving it to them. The S&TAs tell me that they are not going to grant a waiver to ANY bsr - no matter what it is - because they have a liability issue (aka - they may lose their house if the shit hits the fan)

Personally, I tend to agree with the S&TAs on this, but not for their reason. I think any bsr that is wavierable by anyone less than the FB is a rule that should not be a rule. It should be a recommendation instead. IOW, the BSRs are bloated.

>
> 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.

I hope you really do not think this. S&TAs are at the DZ a lot of the time. Every one that I have personally met or communicated with via email or phone has the safety of the jumpers first and foremost in his mind - even the DZO S&TAs. These people do a lot of work and go generally unappreciated at most dzs. They are willing to make sure things work in a safe manner, but it is insane to ask them to accept additional liability by giving waivers to rules that should not be rules in the first place.


>
> 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…………..?

Yes. I'd be in favor of that.

>
>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.

So you agree that it is a people problem.

>
> 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.
>

I'll see your two speeding tickets with one speeding ticket and two tickets for not wearing a seatbelt. I still speed and I still do not wear a seatbelt.

……..

---
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

[Ron 7]

I can and have done the PRO test on a ST107, and a V96.

To land standing up in the peas you have to be able to spot, avoid traffic, control the canopy, determine when the canopy will stop, and be able to stand it up.

I never said you had to do an accuracy approach...I hooked all but one of mine.

It is a simple to give and understand test with very easy to judge pass/fail.

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...

I know several people with a PRO rating. Some of them got them when they had 250 jumps.

So it CAN be done.

Quote

Watch how many people you prevent from skydiving

Just like when the USPA put in Minumum Pull altitudes? Yeah guys quit all the time over those.

Quote

The fact is, most people out there *are* safe at current wingloadings.

Then they should have no problem passing a test to PROVE it right? (For the record it does not have to be the PRO test, but I think it is a good one.)

Quote

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??

Like I said it does not HAVE to be the PRO test....But I can't think of a better test to show you can handle your canopy.

Quote

And number two, if it happens, have fun out at your dz, all by your lonesome.

People will still slydive...This same thing was said about MPA's and DZ's that require AAD's...But I have not seen the sport go away, and those DZ's are still open....So someone is still jumping.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

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.

They would have to take the test on their OLD canopy...not the new one. If they can land their old canopy 10 times standing on target, then they have shown mastery of it.

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

[DrewEckhardt 0]

The pro-rating requires you to make 10 standup landings with both first and final points of contact within a 10 meter circle, when you're current and ready, under wind conditions of your choosing, in the drop zone environment of your choosing.

The qualifiers there mean it's not a hard problem. I can jump my Stiletto 120 at my home DZ with no winds, start a carving 90 to the south just south of the the dirt road, and finish my swoop with a step or two in the middle of the pea gravel.

Being able to do the same thing with winds or using different visual references are separate skills which haven't helped me in > 1300 skydives except by landing me close to the beer so I get the last one, letting me land by my tent at boogies, and in a swoop competition (where I didn't finish last in the accuracy round, and only got wet when I stuck my toe in too far).

Being able to float in risers or brakes lets me hang out until a landing direction is set so I don't fly against traffic, and get vertical separation so I'm landing with the fewest people possible. Being able to flat turn when some schmuck dives in from above has kept me from hitting him or the ground. Being able to gain altitude to fly over obstacles has prevented broken bones. The ability to land up-hill has helped when I've had a horrid spot. Being able to steer after planed out has helped. I like landing cross-wind and will take a long/skinny cross-wind landing area (like a road) instead of trying to fit up-wind into a shorter space. I like landing with a slight tail wind (~5 mph) and can land with a lot more as long as I resign myself to sliding in instead of running - if the wind changes sudenly, I'll take what I'm stuck with. None of these essential survival skills is required to meet the pro-rating accuracy requirements.

In theory, pro-grade accuracy skills might help on an out landing. In practice, every DZ/boogie I've jumped has been either rural (land out in a big farm field/desert/road) or suburban (land out in a big open space/road). Past some low minimum threshold (make it back to a DZ sized area), there are much more important skills than accuracy.

[Ron 7]

Quote

The pro-rating requires you to make 10 standup landings with both first and final points of contact within a 10 meter circle, when you're current and ready, under wind conditions of your choosing, in the drop zone environment of your choosing.

Then it should not be hard for you to get right?

Quote

Being able to do the same thing with winds or using different visual references are separate skills

And those skills could save you life.

Quote

Being able to float in risers or brakes lets me hang out until a landing direction is set so I don't fly against traffic, and get vertical separation so I'm landing with the fewest people possible. Being able to flat turn when some schmuck dives in from above has kept me from hitting him or the ground. Being able to gain altitude to fly over obstacles has prevented broken bones. The ability to land up-hill has helped when I've had a horrid spot. Being able to steer after planed out has helped. I like landing cross-wind and will take a long/skinny cross-wind landing area (like a road) instead of trying to fit up-wind into a shorter space. I like landing with a slight tail wind (~5 mph) and can land with a lot more as long as I resign myself to sliding in instead of running - if the wind changes sudenly, I'll take what I'm stuck with. None of these essential survival skills is required to meet the pro-rating accuracy requirements.

Wrong...To be able to land where you want you have to be able to build a stack so that you don't have everyone landing at the same time. You have to be able to judge winds, and be able to determine where you have to set up to stop in the target area.

Trust me it is a good test.

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

[Aviatrr 0]

Quote

The pro-rating requires you to make 10 standup landings with both first and final points of contact within a 10 meter circle

10 meters? Is that it? Wasn't it previously within 2 meters of target(giving you a 4 meter circle)? 10 is freakin' huge!

Mike

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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.

Results would be at best interesting, but not conclusive in a statistical sense.

DZs that have made the switch did so for a reason - likely at least one and probably multiple incidents. Their accident rate is likely to be worse than the average DZ.

Afterwards if the regulations are enforced on everyone (ie, no grandfathering across the board) you should have a safer group of jumpers, but you may have gotten some of that gain by a substitution effect - those who didn't want to follow the standards went elsewhere, thereby removing the more risk accepting set of your jumpers.

It needs to be implemented on a larger scale to validate the results. And without grandfathering. OTOH, I think most would agree it's more important to get the results than to prove they are real. The danger is that many safety regulations in our country are not contributory, but merely a nuisance.

Would a strictly enforced BSR get jumpers doing more cardio to drop a few pounds? There could be that health benefit.

[Fast 0]

I don't know if I would agree with that. The risk taking jumpers would not have anywhere to go and they would quit, or follwo the rules. In that sense then you have now the same thing as if they went to another DZ.


At least thats my opinion.

~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

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

The pro-rating requires you to make 10 standup landings with both first and final points of contact within a 10 meter circle

10 meters? Is that it? Wasn't it previously within 2 meters of target(giving you a 4 meter circle)? 10 is freakin' huge!

Mike

10 meter circle, on 10 successive declared jumps, first point of contact in the circle, stopping in the circle, standing up.

The license requirements are 2 meters to the target center (4 meter circle), on any jumps out of your hundreds/thousands, first point of contact, stopping any distance from that point, and you don't have to stand up the landing.

In spite of the 10 meter diameter, the pro-rating flavor is harder under both big sinky and small swoopy parachutes. You can come in steeper under a big parachute if you don't have to stand up the landing on hard ground, and with 100+ feet of swoop getting the first point of contact where you want is easy provided you don't have to stop immediately.

[encinoadam 0]

Quote

I can and have done the PRO test on a ST107, and a V96.

That's great. Frankly, I don't care if you have done it with a birdman suit instead of a canopy. This still doesn't say anything about you learning about not hooking it in and hurting yourself.

Quote

I know several people with a PRO rating. Some of them got them when they had 250 jumps.

So it CAN be done.

Of COURSE it can be done. The fact still remains, most people can't. Should that in and of itself prevent the rule from being implemented? Of course not. But it does mean that you'll have that much more resistance to getting it implemented. Further, you've yet to show even one iota of proof that passing the Pro test MEANS anything other than that you'll be a good candidate for performing a demo.

Quote

Then they should have no problem passing a test to PROVE it right? (For the record it does not have to be the PRO test, but I think it is a good one.)

Wrong. I don't think there needs to be a test for everything we do. Again, you're talking about licensed skydivers. You're talking about adults. Quite frankly, I don't need to prove anything to you. And again, your idea of a test to "prove" my abilities is completely arbitrary. You've yet to show what the connection is between passing the pro test and learning not to smash yourself into the ground.

Quote

Like I said it does not HAVE to be the PRO test....But I can't think of a better test to show you can handle your canopy.

Awesome. Come up with something appropriate, and watch the supporters rally around you. Don't you see... the primary problem is people that turn too low to the ground, either intentionally (to hook) or unintentionally (because they are unaware that they do not have sufficient altitude and have decided to turn into the wind... or turn to avoid something). I bet I could land all sorts of canopies just fine.... flying straight in. I landed a Stiletto 135 once and had no problem. But, does that mean I should be flying that canopy? No. It's still too little, too soon, in my eyes.

Quote

People will still slydive...This same thing was said about MPA's and DZ's that require AAD's...But I have not seen the sport go away, and those DZ's are still open....So someone is still jumping.

People would still skydive even if the jumps cost $100 and they made you jump a 290. So what? Does that mean it should still be that way? Gas could cost $5 a gallon, and I'll still buy it. That isn't the point. The point is... how fun or how miserable are you going to make it for people? When is an adult an adult? When does someone get to make big-boy decisions, all for themselves? I get to do this every day... in everything I do. Are there rules and regulations? Of course. But we already have them in skydiving. We don't need more abstract, arbitrary rules that only a few people want.

I think I am done with this subject. I've already stated several times that accuracy counts. I've already thrown my support to a reasonable BSR and additional canopy training. But, I can't and won't support draconian methods to advance your unsubstantiated method of reducing injuries and fatalities.

But look, don't take my word for it. Like I said, feel free to start a poll. Or, do what I did... and ask around your own DZ. Better yet, go to your DZO and get him or her to implement your ideas. The proof will be in the pudding.

I'll just take solace with the knowledge that your idea will never go beyond dropzone.com. And, that isn't an attack on you. I think your intentions are in the right place. But, I would suggest taking a more subtle approach that might help a greater number of people while also having a greater chance of actually seeing the light of day.

ac

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

> Quote
>The CYPRES made a difference, not the rule book.
>
>Then let's throw the rule book away…………..?

Yes. I'd be in favor of that.

Please allow me to thank you for broaching this subject. The pull altitude BSR has been a sacred cow to many of the people on this forum, and I did not feel that it was worthwhile for me to raise the subject, with the amount of ad homiem language in this forum.

I think the reason people deploy their parachutes higher is that now pulling low triggers their otherwise reliable AAD.

Here's a proposal: A black box of sorts for swoopers. If you exceed certain operational parameters, eg, pull too many G's or turn too many degrees at an altitude too low, the thing makes a loud noise, flashes a bright light and you have to pay several hundred dollars to get it reset, even if you manage to dig yourself out of the corner. Call it a transponder and in conjuction with a few base stations and do inferometry to determine the exact trajectory of the swoop and calculate operational safety parameters that way. It would still be vulnerable to risk-shifting but that's not stopping the WL BSR proposals, so what the hey

DZ's could require jumpers to wear it until they saw fit to trust them to swoop safely...or forerver....make it so you can't turn if off easily to make enforcement easier. And you could use it for swooping competitions kinda ike the baseballl tracking thingie. I know they don't use a transponder in the baseball...I just mean the graphics they show on TV with the tracking system.

nathaniel

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

[VectorBoy 0]

Quote

Quote

Watch how many people you prevent from skydiving (or how many people quit in disgust).

Way back in the day, everyone jumped "boring" canopies because that's all that was available. I don't remember anyone I knew quitting the sport because their canopy was boring.

Quote

Well now you know one, or rather have known one for a while. When I started it was rounds for a hundred jumps minimum, no exceptions.

Meanwhile I was forced to watch experienced skydivers dead man face flare, ass pound, knee skid all of their landings horribly. Having never ever jumped a square canopy but have completed 1000's of landings in aircraft I knew I could do better. No exception. So I quit!

sixteen years later under my first square canopy ride I was indulging in FULL stalls, tight spirals, NO_LOW_TURNS and an accurate tippy toe landing at the feet of my AFF instructor. With the exception of one AFF landing all where stand up tippy toe right where I wanted them, On video. All were much better than the several hundred jump wizards of decades ago. The ones that knew what was good for me.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[encinoadam 0]

Quote

Way back in the day, everyone jumped "boring" canopies because that's all that was available. I don't remember anyone I knew quitting the sport because their canopy was boring.

Sorry... one last thought... Way back in the day, people jumped rounds. People jumped without a Cypres. Wingsuits were considered deadly. So what? That was then and this is now. The sport has evolved... as it will continue to do. Let's find a medicine that fits the disease. We can do that through a non-draconian BSR and a test (if that is really necessary) that is applicable to the skillset. Education is key. People are not dumb... especially skydivers. Give them the chance to be educated... and they will take it. Most people don't want to die. They just need the opportunity to learn.

ac

[geronimo 1]

Quote

I think the reason people deploy their parachutes higher is that now pulling low triggers their otherwise reliable AAD.

Here's a proposal: A black box of sorts for swoopers. If you exceed certain operational parameters, eg, pull too many G's or turn too many degrees at an altitude too low, the thing makes a loud noise, flashes a bright light and you have to pay several hundred dollars to get it reset, even if you manage to dig yourself out of the corner. Call it a transponder and in conjuction with a few base stations and do inferometry to determine the exact trajectory of the swoop and calculate operational safety parameters that way. It would still be vulnerable to risk-shifting but that's not stopping the WL BSR proposals, so what the hey

DZ's could require jumpers to wear it until they saw fit to trust them to swoop safely...or forerver....make it so you can't turn if off easily to make enforcement easier. And you could use it for swooping competitions kinda ike the baseballl tracking thingie. I know they don't use a transponder in the baseball...I just mean the graphics they show on TV with the tracking system.

nathaniel

see
Fast forward to the year 2050 -last half of article is relavent
Is Device Dependency Anonymous for You?
and just for fun
Canopy Control, Hook Turn and Turf Surfing Training
.

---
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

[billvon 2,394]

> black box of sorts for swoopers. If you exceed certain operational
>parameters, eg, pull too many G's or turn too many degrees at an
>altitude too low, the thing makes a loud noise, flashes a bright light
>and you have to pay several hundred dollars to get it reset, even if
>you manage to dig yourself out of the corner.

That would be about as useful as an AAD that fired but didn't open your reserve. Add a feature that saves a jumper from getting killed by doing a low turn and you'd have something; it might even save some lives. I very much doubt such a device could be designed, since it would have to have better judgement than a jumper did on entry altitude, recovery arc etc. Education is far better than adding a device in any case.

[VectorBoy 0]

Oh come on Bill it could be like that cockpit voice stall warning device " Pull up,pull up, pull up."

[Ron 7]

So all you have ever done is land a ST135 once?

Maybe you really don't understand how important it is to be able to know how far/fast you are going to swoop?

But Im done here

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

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

You've yet to show what the connection is between passing the pro test and learning not to smash yourself into the ground.

Seen a few smashing themselves into the ground.
Never saw one that combined it with a stand up landing

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't know if I would agree with that. The risk taking jumpers would not have anywhere to go and they would quit, or follwo the rules. In that sense then you have now the same thing as if they went to another DZ.


At least thats my opinion.

This is true if a BSR is full implemented. But what I wrote concerned looking at the safety results at the 3 DZs that have currently implemented such regulation. Here you can have guys choosing to vote with their pocketbooks (and lives). It would be quite surprising if the DZ record didn't improve, but not necessarily because it would be effective nationwide.

It's much easier to improve if your zone is in the worst 10% (be it for bad luck, crazy jumpers, or whatever) than it is to improve the average for all DZs. You have nowhere to go but up.

The substitution effect is another notion out there that bears consideration. I don't fully buy into it, but the concept goes that if you reduce the danger, participants tend to become complacent and take greater risks elsewhere. Drivers got used to the reliable panic stopping ability of ABS brakes and tailgate more than ever. End result is the accident rate didn't change much.

Skydiving now have very few deaths to mals, but deaths due to low turns has nearly made up for it. This doesn't mean don't try, but be aware of the downsides to safety improvements and know that it's never a short battle.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

In spite of the 10 meter diameter, the pro-rating flavor is harder under both big sinky and small swoopy parachutes. You can come in steeper under a big parachute if you don't have to stand up the landing on hard ground, and with 100+ feet of swoop getting the first point of contact where you want is easy provided you don't have to stop immediately.

If you take the time to learn how to fly one, those big sinky canopies you can come in steep and do a tipping toe landing. Have done it hundreds of times.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

Have done it hundreds of times.

The other thousands of times though (whaddaya got there sparky 3800?) he fell solidly upon his arse!

coitus non circum - Moab Stone