billvon 2,428 #1 May 2, 2007 This was part of a letter to USPA that several of us wrote some three years back. The subject (canopy coaching) has been resurrected in the landing pattern BSR thread, so I am reposting it here to get some discussion going on whether this is another path we could take to help reduce landing-pattern accidents. --------------------------- We ask USPA to do the following: . . . Develop a Canopy Instructor (CI) rating which focuses on skills required to safely land heavily loaded high performance canopies. Currently, many jumpers receive no practical HP canopy training at all; it is possible to progress through the ISP jumping only a 288 square foot canopy. With the rapid development of very high performance canopies, canopy skills are as critical for skydiver survival (if not more critical) than freefall skills. The intent of the CI would be to teach the canopy skills required for the new licenses, and to waiver those who demonstrate the skill required to progress to small canopies more quickly than their jump numbers would ordinarily allow. We recognize that any additional restrictions placed on skydivers should be considered very carefully; skydiving has never been a sport of heavy regulation, and regulations alone will not keep anyone safe. However, new regulations are falling into place already. Individual DZ's are implementing canopy loading restrictions with no education, no commonality and no way to "waiver out" of the requirements. We feel that USPA could implement a canopy training program that will educate more jumpers, be less restrictive and keep even pilots of very high performance canopies alive and jumping. Signed, William von Novak D16479 Chuck Blue D12501 Derek Vanboeschoten D18847 Lisa Briggs D14633 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #2 May 2, 2007 Have you made informal contact with Jim Crouch and a variety of Directors to gauge their thoughts and possible objections? It's a good idea, and I'm guessing it has already been kicked around USPA. My hunch is that there are reasons it hasn't matured into action. Back channel communication will help you understand those reasons, and you will be better able to advocate for adoption.Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chriswelker 0 #3 May 2, 2007 QuoteWe ask USPA to do the following: . . . Develop a Canopy Instructor (CI) rating which focuses on skills required to safely land heavily loaded high performance canopies. Currently, many jumpers receive no practical HP canopy training at all; Well since the MANUFACTURES built these things, hows about getting them to take RESPONSOBILITY for their products and provide the training. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,428 #4 May 2, 2007 >hows about getting them to take RESPONSOBILITY for their products >and provide the training. How do we get them to do that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ORANGENBLUE 0 #5 May 2, 2007 Is it Honda's responsibility to teach people to drive? Maybe Nike should teach people to walk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Glitch 0 #6 May 2, 2007 No, no, no, no, no.... How about we take responsibility for ourselves first! Your idea is akin to holding car manufacturers responsible for auto accidents or for teaching us to drive. Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chriswelker 0 #7 May 2, 2007 QuoteQuote>hows about getting them to take RESPONSOBILITY for their products >and provide the training. How do we get them to do that? Ask them. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflyn 0 #8 May 2, 2007 QuoteDevelop a Canopy Instructor (CI) rating which focuses on skills required to safely land heavily loaded high performance canopies. Currently, many jumpers receive no practical HP canopy training at all; This is completely necessary, however, I believe that this should be tiered system. Starting with basics to intermediate (CI 1), then intermediate to advanced (CI 2)and finishing with a CI-3 advanced to expert (high performance landings). This would allow people to learn how to teach (and observe) canopy piloting effectively in a relatively safe manner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chriswelker 0 #9 May 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteIs it Honda's responsibility to teach people to drive? So what your saying is a 288 Manta loaded at 1:1 handles and flies exactlky like a XAOS 91 loaded at 2:1. Cool theory. Quote Maybe Nike should teach people to walk.To those that don't know how? What your point? Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #10 May 2, 2007 How about we get people to be able to give basic canopy instruction and regulations, before we worry about the advanced stuff? I think there is enough in the way of advanced coaching out there if jumpers look for it.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ianmdrennan 2 #11 May 2, 2007 QuoteSo what your saying is a 288 Manta loaded at 1:1 handles and flies exactlky like a XAOS 91 loaded at 2:1. No but then neither does a 125 honda vs a CBR 954 RR - both of which can be purchased on the floor by anyone. IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ianmdrennan 2 #12 May 2, 2007 I agree with JP. The focus should NOT be on HP stuff, it should be on canopy flight in general.Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,428 #13 May 2, 2007 > How about we get people to be able to give basic canopy instruction > and regulations, before we worry about the advanced stuff? We have that. Any instructor who follows the SIM is giving basic canopy instruction, including standard patterns, braked turns, the "two stage flare" etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chriswelker 0 #14 May 2, 2007 Quote No but then neither does a 125 honda vs a CBR 954 RR - both of which can be purchased on the floor by anyone. The LAWS that pertain to how fast these vehicles can LEGALLY go are the same. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #15 May 2, 2007 Now get all instructors to follow the SIM and teach all of that. Doing so will do more to improve saftey than any additional ratings or rules.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ORANGENBLUE 0 #16 May 2, 2007 Ya, and NOOOOOBODY speeds, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Legs 0 #17 May 2, 2007 I dont know if an extension of the UK system is something you should be looking towards. skydiver needs to acheive CH1 (Canopy Handling) to get their A license, CH2 for their B. You could extend this to CH3 for C and bar anyone below a C license from High performance landings ect. Just a lateral thoughtWith love in Christ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 3 #18 May 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote>hows about getting them to take RESPONSOBILITY for their products >and provide the training. How do we get them to do that? Ask them. Chris You'll never get manufacturers to train users/operators of this sort of product, because of inherent liability. They could raise the price to cover the costs incurred by raised liability potential, but even then, it's not likely, because of the differences in mental and physical abilities. I'd just as soon see DZO's or resellers that sell canopies be liable/responsible for who they sell canopies to. I like the idea of a canopy instructor rating, there is no reason that the USPA should be resistant to the concept that I can think of. We have freefall instructors, why not canopy instructor ratings? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jacketsdb23 45 #19 May 2, 2007 I think in some cases education and having a tiered canopy progression will help. It will help the new generation of skydivers coming up. However, it would not have helped Bob, Danny, Tommy D or Cliff. All of them, best of my knowledge had 1000's of jumps, D licenses and KNEW how to fly canopies. With the exception of Bob- judgment was grossly lacking in all of these cases. Education in these cases would not help. This is where I believe the BSR thread discussion comes in.Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen God is Good Beer is Great Swoopers are crazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chriswelker 0 #20 May 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>hows about getting them to take RESPONSOBILITY for their products >and provide the training. How do we get them to do that? Ask them. Chris QuoteYou'll never get manufacturers to train users/operators of this sort of product, because of inherent liability. It isn't a matter of if more of when some canopy mfg. gets sued over a hp canopy accident. From a risk management point I would rather be on the witness stand saying: "The deceased took a factory piloting class and proved capable of safely flying this hp wing in all conditions" VS "Training? What do you mean training, We just make and sell the things and if you got the money to pay for it then we are going to sell it to you." Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,428 #21 May 2, 2007 >From a risk management point I would rather be on the witness stand > saying: "The deceased took a factory piloting class and proved capable of >safely flying this hp wing in all conditions" VS "Training? What do you > mean training? I see the opposite. Case 1: Manufacturer sells a wing to a skydiver with the usual warnings, including "this canopy is NOT safe and cannot be safely jumped without extensive training and experience" and "max loading is 174 lbs." Jumper jumps it at 210 lbs exit weight with no training, and dies. On the stand manufacturer says "we told him explicitly that he should NOT jump it without training or above that loading, and he did anyway. He died because he ignored the manufacturer's instructions and safety limits." Case 2: Manufacturer sells a wing to a skydiver only after a week-long course. Jumper then kills himself with it. Prosecutor says "So let me get this straight. You trained him on this canopy - a canopy he was loading over your own safety limits - and told him he was safe to jump it at the end of the course? Were you lying to him then? Or are you lying on your safety warnings now?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 3 #22 May 2, 2007 I don't at all disagree, I feel manufacturers should take an assertive and proactive role in training. But they won't or can't. As part of a project I'm working on, I interviewed a few manufacturers at PIA on this very subject. Apparently they've been counseled that they're better off being hands-off. I can see a manufacturer recommending that a purchaser of an HP canopy take a course, and I can see a reseller require that someone purchasing the HP canopy provide evidence that either they've taken a course or demonstrate that they possess the skill required to own the canopy. Indy 500 doesn't just let anyone on the track; neither should we. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #23 May 3, 2007 QuoteWe have freefall instructors, why not canopy instructor ratings? Pardon my aggravating tone, but WE HAVE INSTRUCTORS! Period. And many of them are not doing their jobs. AFF, IAD, Static Line, or Tandem, ALL USPA instructors must be capable of educating jumpers as to how to safely fly and land their parachutes. No matter if they are the only one in the air or one of many.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,428 #24 May 3, 2007 >ALL USPA instructors must be capable of educating jumpers as to how to >safely fly and land their parachutes Currently, I think most are capable of teaching students how to fly and land lightly loaded Navigators. Not all are capable of teaching students how to land moderately loaded Sabre 2's - which is the stage where most of the canopy fatalities begin to be seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #25 May 3, 2007 Then they have no business being instructors, as that parachute is easily obtainable, and even recomended to novice skydivers. In my most humble oppinion.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
diablopilot 2 #10 May 2, 2007 How about we get people to be able to give basic canopy instruction and regulations, before we worry about the advanced stuff? I think there is enough in the way of advanced coaching out there if jumpers look for it.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #11 May 2, 2007 QuoteSo what your saying is a 288 Manta loaded at 1:1 handles and flies exactlky like a XAOS 91 loaded at 2:1. No but then neither does a 125 honda vs a CBR 954 RR - both of which can be purchased on the floor by anyone. IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #12 May 2, 2007 I agree with JP. The focus should NOT be on HP stuff, it should be on canopy flight in general.Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,428 #13 May 2, 2007 > How about we get people to be able to give basic canopy instruction > and regulations, before we worry about the advanced stuff? We have that. Any instructor who follows the SIM is giving basic canopy instruction, including standard patterns, braked turns, the "two stage flare" etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chriswelker 0 #14 May 2, 2007 Quote No but then neither does a 125 honda vs a CBR 954 RR - both of which can be purchased on the floor by anyone. The LAWS that pertain to how fast these vehicles can LEGALLY go are the same. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #15 May 2, 2007 Now get all instructors to follow the SIM and teach all of that. Doing so will do more to improve saftey than any additional ratings or rules.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ORANGENBLUE 0 #16 May 2, 2007 Ya, and NOOOOOBODY speeds, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Legs 0 #17 May 2, 2007 I dont know if an extension of the UK system is something you should be looking towards. skydiver needs to acheive CH1 (Canopy Handling) to get their A license, CH2 for their B. You could extend this to CH3 for C and bar anyone below a C license from High performance landings ect. Just a lateral thoughtWith love in Christ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #18 May 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote>hows about getting them to take RESPONSOBILITY for their products >and provide the training. How do we get them to do that? Ask them. Chris You'll never get manufacturers to train users/operators of this sort of product, because of inherent liability. They could raise the price to cover the costs incurred by raised liability potential, but even then, it's not likely, because of the differences in mental and physical abilities. I'd just as soon see DZO's or resellers that sell canopies be liable/responsible for who they sell canopies to. I like the idea of a canopy instructor rating, there is no reason that the USPA should be resistant to the concept that I can think of. We have freefall instructors, why not canopy instructor ratings? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jacketsdb23 45 #19 May 2, 2007 I think in some cases education and having a tiered canopy progression will help. It will help the new generation of skydivers coming up. However, it would not have helped Bob, Danny, Tommy D or Cliff. All of them, best of my knowledge had 1000's of jumps, D licenses and KNEW how to fly canopies. With the exception of Bob- judgment was grossly lacking in all of these cases. Education in these cases would not help. This is where I believe the BSR thread discussion comes in.Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen God is Good Beer is Great Swoopers are crazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chriswelker 0 #20 May 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>hows about getting them to take RESPONSOBILITY for their products >and provide the training. How do we get them to do that? Ask them. Chris QuoteYou'll never get manufacturers to train users/operators of this sort of product, because of inherent liability. It isn't a matter of if more of when some canopy mfg. gets sued over a hp canopy accident. From a risk management point I would rather be on the witness stand saying: "The deceased took a factory piloting class and proved capable of safely flying this hp wing in all conditions" VS "Training? What do you mean training, We just make and sell the things and if you got the money to pay for it then we are going to sell it to you." Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,428 #21 May 2, 2007 >From a risk management point I would rather be on the witness stand > saying: "The deceased took a factory piloting class and proved capable of >safely flying this hp wing in all conditions" VS "Training? What do you > mean training? I see the opposite. Case 1: Manufacturer sells a wing to a skydiver with the usual warnings, including "this canopy is NOT safe and cannot be safely jumped without extensive training and experience" and "max loading is 174 lbs." Jumper jumps it at 210 lbs exit weight with no training, and dies. On the stand manufacturer says "we told him explicitly that he should NOT jump it without training or above that loading, and he did anyway. He died because he ignored the manufacturer's instructions and safety limits." Case 2: Manufacturer sells a wing to a skydiver only after a week-long course. Jumper then kills himself with it. Prosecutor says "So let me get this straight. You trained him on this canopy - a canopy he was loading over your own safety limits - and told him he was safe to jump it at the end of the course? Were you lying to him then? Or are you lying on your safety warnings now?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 3 #22 May 2, 2007 I don't at all disagree, I feel manufacturers should take an assertive and proactive role in training. But they won't or can't. As part of a project I'm working on, I interviewed a few manufacturers at PIA on this very subject. Apparently they've been counseled that they're better off being hands-off. I can see a manufacturer recommending that a purchaser of an HP canopy take a course, and I can see a reseller require that someone purchasing the HP canopy provide evidence that either they've taken a course or demonstrate that they possess the skill required to own the canopy. Indy 500 doesn't just let anyone on the track; neither should we. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #23 May 3, 2007 QuoteWe have freefall instructors, why not canopy instructor ratings? Pardon my aggravating tone, but WE HAVE INSTRUCTORS! Period. And many of them are not doing their jobs. AFF, IAD, Static Line, or Tandem, ALL USPA instructors must be capable of educating jumpers as to how to safely fly and land their parachutes. No matter if they are the only one in the air or one of many.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,428 #24 May 3, 2007 >ALL USPA instructors must be capable of educating jumpers as to how to >safely fly and land their parachutes Currently, I think most are capable of teaching students how to fly and land lightly loaded Navigators. Not all are capable of teaching students how to land moderately loaded Sabre 2's - which is the stage where most of the canopy fatalities begin to be seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #25 May 3, 2007 Then they have no business being instructors, as that parachute is easily obtainable, and even recomended to novice skydivers. In my most humble oppinion.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 2,428 #21 May 2, 2007 >From a risk management point I would rather be on the witness stand > saying: "The deceased took a factory piloting class and proved capable of >safely flying this hp wing in all conditions" VS "Training? What do you > mean training? I see the opposite. Case 1: Manufacturer sells a wing to a skydiver with the usual warnings, including "this canopy is NOT safe and cannot be safely jumped without extensive training and experience" and "max loading is 174 lbs." Jumper jumps it at 210 lbs exit weight with no training, and dies. On the stand manufacturer says "we told him explicitly that he should NOT jump it without training or above that loading, and he did anyway. He died because he ignored the manufacturer's instructions and safety limits." Case 2: Manufacturer sells a wing to a skydiver only after a week-long course. Jumper then kills himself with it. Prosecutor says "So let me get this straight. You trained him on this canopy - a canopy he was loading over your own safety limits - and told him he was safe to jump it at the end of the course? Were you lying to him then? Or are you lying on your safety warnings now?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #22 May 2, 2007 I don't at all disagree, I feel manufacturers should take an assertive and proactive role in training. But they won't or can't. As part of a project I'm working on, I interviewed a few manufacturers at PIA on this very subject. Apparently they've been counseled that they're better off being hands-off. I can see a manufacturer recommending that a purchaser of an HP canopy take a course, and I can see a reseller require that someone purchasing the HP canopy provide evidence that either they've taken a course or demonstrate that they possess the skill required to own the canopy. Indy 500 doesn't just let anyone on the track; neither should we. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #23 May 3, 2007 QuoteWe have freefall instructors, why not canopy instructor ratings? Pardon my aggravating tone, but WE HAVE INSTRUCTORS! Period. And many of them are not doing their jobs. AFF, IAD, Static Line, or Tandem, ALL USPA instructors must be capable of educating jumpers as to how to safely fly and land their parachutes. No matter if they are the only one in the air or one of many.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,428 #24 May 3, 2007 >ALL USPA instructors must be capable of educating jumpers as to how to >safely fly and land their parachutes Currently, I think most are capable of teaching students how to fly and land lightly loaded Navigators. Not all are capable of teaching students how to land moderately loaded Sabre 2's - which is the stage where most of the canopy fatalities begin to be seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #25 May 3, 2007 Then they have no business being instructors, as that parachute is easily obtainable, and even recomended to novice skydivers. In my most humble oppinion.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)