kallend 1,640 #26 July 2, 2004 QuoteAngela, Quoteellipticals are not the death traps they are made out to be In the right hands, no they aren't I agree. QuoteYou know where your flare is, how much toggle it takes to turn, etc. I got a Stiletto loaded very lightly (<1:1) at 44 jumps and I really enjoyed that canopy for quite some time while still maintaining a low w/l. Inexperience under these wings causes the "weaving landings" and other deployment issues. You say you were on a stiletto at around 44 jumps - didn't you also have to chop it because of linetwists or end up close to cutting it (can't remember the details)? I had a Stiletto at 40 jumps. No cutaways or injuries in 1400 jumps, never had anyone need to avoid me on landing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #27 July 2, 2004 QuoteSo bite me. No thanks, not my thing. I'm sure you were spectacular under the wing. After all you never seem to be capable of error. You also happen to jump at a dropzone known for it's progressive canopy teaching, and a good size landing area. Most don't have that privilege. Your turn to bite? Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyinchicken 0 #28 July 2, 2004 Quote You can "test out" of any restrictions by demonstrating proficiency in front of a canopy coach or instructor. And if it turns out that they are jumping a canopy that they can't land well? They may not have chosen their own limits so well after all. Hmmm Duane Weston... He thought he knew his limits...had thousands of jumps...ended up being meat sprayed all over a bunch of innocent bystanders. The level of experience required to handle a high performance canopy or w/l should be 100% Ten jumps swooped at x speed with x amount of distance landing in x. Think about it...I know people who 90& of the time can swoop in and not endager anyone including themselves....what about that 10% though? Just because you're good does not mean you are perfect From the stats that I have read from the USPA...seems to me like it is EXPERIENCED pilots under high wing loadings that we really need too worry about. Complacency and human error are the devils of skydiving not ignorance. We work hard to make sure EVERYONE is trained well. It's hot shotting and "I know it all" attitudes that are killing the sport. No more ...... no less. "Diligent observation leads to pure abstraction". Lari Pittman Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #29 July 2, 2004 QuoteCalm down, Genius. I had line twists at 20~ jumps on a Sabre II 150. I was kicked off a completely different dz than that one due to the fact that they didn't want me jumping an elliptical at 44 jumps. I'm not really sure why I bother replying to you. You don't take anything that I have to say into account, you just try to slam people who don't follow Ron's rules. No tend to bring to light BS when I see it...And you claiming that you had a good canopy control record is BS...You were kicked off TWO DZ's.. So much for your good canopy control. People....If you are going to take advice or opinions from someone...make sure they were not considered DANGEROUS under canopy before you take canopy advice from them."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #30 July 2, 2004 QuoteI had a Stiletto at 40 jumps. No cutaways or injuries in 1400 jumps, never had anyone need to avoid me on landing. You also were taught a SDC....Plus and I think this is the bigger thing, you have a pilots license AND a glider rating."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveNFlorida 0 #31 July 2, 2004 Quote>Of course, for some it takes longer than others, but it just sucks that >because a couple of guys want to load a canopy they are not ready > for extremely high, those that can competently set our their limits > (which may not fall within the restrictions, but they are not > completely radical) have to pay with tight restrictions. Not with our plan. You can "test out" of any restrictions by demonstrating proficiency in front of a canopy coach or instructor. And if it turns out that they are jumping a canopy that they can't land well? They may not have chosen their own limits so well after all. That makes sense, then. If they want more, then take the initiative to learn to handle it. Instruction is worth its weight in gold. Angela. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiveNFlorida 0 #32 July 2, 2004 QuoteYou were kicked off TWO DZ's.. Actually, Ron. You are misinformed. That does happen, you know? I was not "kicked off" of any dzs, but one dz told me that if I wanted to jump there I would not be jumping an elliptical. I opted to leave with my elliptical canopy at that time. Instead of spreading bullshit, you should check your sources/info. Anyone who tells you I was kicked off of any dz is completely incorrect. edit to add: furthermore, in response to : QuotePeople....If you are going to take advice or opinions from someone...make sure they were not considered DANGEROUS under canopy before you take canopy advice from them. I am not ADVISING anyone in this thread. I gave my opinion of strict rules concerning types of canopies, and even excluded wings that I have had no experience under and have no opinion on (xbraced). So, once again, your need to bash someone has caused your fingers to type a reply faster than your mind can comprehend what you have read. Not the first time, and won't be the last I am sure. Angela. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #33 July 2, 2004 QuoteActually, Ron. You are misinformed. That does happen, you know? I was not "kicked off" of any dzs, but one dz told me that if I wanted to jump there I would not be jumping an elliptical. I opted to leave with my elliptical canopy at that time. Instead of spreading bullshit, you should check your sources/info. Anyone who tells you I was kicked off of any dz is completely incorrect. Well sorry I have 4 people telling me you were kicked off, and only one (you) telling me you were not. either way at least one DZ said you could not jump that canopy there...And I was told there were reasons...So for you to claim that you did fine...Well there are atleast 4 people and one DZ that thinks otherwise."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,421 #34 July 2, 2004 Could we not have this fight again, please? PM's would be a much better way to decide who said what to who. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #35 July 2, 2004 QuoteCould we not have this fight again, please? PM's would be a much better way to decide who said what to who. the problem is Bill, she is going to say something like: Quoteellipticals are not the death traps they are made out to be for low-timers who take the initiative to get canopy training (at low wingloading). Once you get used to the controls, it becomes second nature But she has a very bad history of canopy flight. People need to know her opinion while she is fine to give it is NOT the best opinion out there. QuoteI was kicked off a completely different dz than that one due to the fact that they didn't want me jumping an elliptical at 44 jumps. QuoteStupidity does kill. And, certainly the longer time you spend in the sport, the more you understand risk. Of course, for some it takes longer than others, but it just sucks that because a couple of guys want to load a canopy they are not ready for extremely high, those that can competently set our their limits (which may not fall within the restrictions, but they are not completely radical) have to pay with tight restrictions. But like she said...The longer you are in this sport the more you understand risks...Which is why those with the expereince should be listend to. and that some it takes longer than others.....And that some don't know what those limits are...how can a new jumper be sure THEY know their limits when others don't?...I bet they ALL thought they did. and to skydivenflorida:Quote So, once again, your need to bash someone has caused your fingers to type a reply faster than your mind can comprehend what you have read. Not the first time, and won't be the last I am sure. Maybe you need to . . . Enough!"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,421 #36 July 2, 2004 >the problem is Bill, she is going to say something like: She's already said that, and you've already replied. You've had this fight with her before. From the forum rules: ------------- Posts that are repetitive in nature (i.e. Dead Horses) may be removed or locked at the discretion of the moderators. ------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #37 July 5, 2004 Quote>the problem is Bill, she is going to say something like: She's already said that, and you've already replied. You've had this fight with her before. From the forum rules: ------------- Posts that are repetitive in nature (i.e. Dead Horses) may be removed or locked at the discretion of the moderators. Then lock it or delete it.....For that matter ban me. As long as she keeps giving canopy advice and tries to show a "blue print" of a canopy progression)I am going to contine to point out that she is not the best source. Now I hear she is better than she was, but that does not make her progression good. Its called doing what I can to prevent people from getting fucked up. Newbies cruze this site and see her and use her as the example... "Well, she did it" And if they only know HALF the story she looks like a success story..(well she didn't DIE so she is not a really bad example, but not a good example) Like I said, I am going to always try to keep people safe...You may not like that, or my methods.....But thats something I can live with...If you cant...Well thats your choice."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites teason 0 #38 July 5, 2004 Yeah this is the same s**t different thread. I was thinking about cutting and pasting all my previous ones together, saves me the typing.But just to muddy the waters a little here, are we forgetting about change in wingloading for novices? Take a 100 lbs girl and a 200lbs guy. Lets say they both learn on a manta and then go to a 1:1 wingloading. Why is it less safe for the girl? Change in wingloading! Another point. What if you jump at a new DZ where barely anyone has an elliptical HP highly loaded canopy and those who do lack proper coaching skills? What if your DZ is in a northern region and you don't jump for 6 months and when you do, it's only weekends? I've noticed that it usually takes a jumper 3 seasons to be aware of his own lack of awareness. These are the factors that could play a major role as I see them 1.) currency 2.) training available 3.) previous canopy size 4.) individual skill/ego level That's the argument for DZ regulation but we still need a basic regulation for across the board standarization. Perhapse a canopy CoP may be the answer here as well as a pregression chart. I believe that one of the problems here is that there aren't any proper goals set forth for the learning jumper. All they focus on is the guy they see swooping and not the steps that must be taken to get there. WE NEED STRUCTURE! Otherwise there is only choas and misunderstanding. If a jumper is upset that he can't jump in higher winds, he has a goal set in front of him. He can work toward a higher CoP. If he is upset that he can't jump a smaller elliptical canopy, he feels that others veiw him as less of a jumper because he doesn't understand the path to get there. That's why some 100 jump wonders won't listen. The more experience we have, the more it seems like we are rubbing it in their faces. When I got my first canopy, I went from an f-111 manta loaded at .65 to the manufacturers' ablsolute maximum loading on a sabre 170 which was 187 lbs. at the time! Not very extreme. Things have changed in the real world but not in our regulations. We critcize the FAA for not keeping up, how about us! We've changed the way we look at acceptable wing loading for experienced jumpers. Student training, however, has not changed that much. I know there are some DZs that have advanced student canopy skills training, but there is nothing formal or standarized to guide the average DZ. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #39 July 5, 2004 QuoteBut just to muddy the waters a little here, are we forgetting about change in wingloading for novices? Take a 100 lbs girl and a 200lbs guy. Lets say they both learn on a manta and then go to a 1:1 wingloading. Why is it less safe for the girl? Change in wingloading! Jumper 1 has a Sabre1 that opens in 300 feet. Jumper 2 has a crossfire that takes 800 feet to open. They both have "D" licenses. They both pull at 2,000 feet. Who is safer? If someone is pulling at 2,000 feet and sitting in at 1,000 feet, the DZO can still tell the jumper to pull higher. If someone is within the WL BSR limits, but still un-safe, the DZO can still prevent them from jumping the too-small canopy. QuoteAnother point. What if you jump at a new DZ where barely anyone has an elliptical HP highly loaded canopy and those who do lack proper coaching skills? Then you will have to travel to get the coaching. QuoteWhat if your DZ is in a northern region and you don't jump for 6 months and when you do, it's only weekends? Then you will have to compensate by jumping a larger canopy. Jumping only 6 onths out of the year does not lend itself to jumping a small HP canopy safely. QuoteWE NEED STRUCTURE! Otherwise there is only choas and misunderstanding. I agree. QuotePerhapse a canopy CoP A what? QuoteIf he is upset that he can't jump a smaller elliptical canopy, he feels that others veiw him as less of a jumper because he doesn't understand the path to get there. That's why some 100 jump wonders won't listen. The more experience we have, the more it seems like we are rubbing it in their faces. Exactly. QuoteThings have changed in the real world but not in our regulations. We critcize the FAA for not keeping up, how about us! We've changed the way we look at acceptable wing loading for experienced jumpers. Student training, however, has not changed that much. I know there are some DZs that have advanced student canopy skills training, but there is nothing formal or standarized to guide the average DZ. There is the ISP that USPA backed down from requiring. If the FAA steps in to regulate, they will restrict the hell out of skydiving. They are un-informed about skydiving. USPA needs to step up and get it done. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites teason 0 #40 July 5, 2004 What's a CoP? ooops sorry. It was canuck talk for license. You see, in Canada we issue a Certificate of Proficiency. Licenses can only be given out by Gov't folk. Just symantecs. The other points were to illustrate that a regulation cannot be as clear cut and as simple as just wingloading/planform. There are a great deal of varibles to consider. There is a need, however, to set goals and create structure. The governing bodies should address this but there must be a enough flexibility in any regulation for the indiviual DZ to tailor it for their unique situation. The USPA/CSPA/BPA or whatever body you belong to cannot do this alone. That maybe why it has been rejected so far. DZs must be factored into the equation. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #41 July 5, 2004 QuoteThe other points were to illustrate that a regulation cannot be as clear cut and as simple as just wingloading/planform. Why not? There are a lot of factors that contribute to a 'safe' pull altitude, but the BSR is based strictly on jump numbers/license and that BSR seems to work. DerekQuoteQuoteThe other points were to illustrate that a regulation cannot be as clear cut and as simple as just wingloading/planform. Why not? There are a lot of factors that contribute to a 'safe' pull altitude, but the BSR is based strictly on jump numbers/license and that BSR seems to work. Quote he governing bodies should address this but there must be a enough flexibility in any regulation for the indiviual DZ to tailor it for their unique situation. That is why the BSR can be exceeded w/ the appropriate signature. The proposed WL BSR has flexibility built in. If a jumper wants to jump a canopy within the limits, but that is still too much for them, the DZO doesn’t have to let them. The BSR must be simple to be effective. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,421 #42 July 5, 2004 >The other points were to illustrate that a regulation cannot be as >clear cut and as simple as just wingloading/planform. I think it can be. Keep in mind that the purpose of such a regulation is not to "keep people safe" it is to get them into canopy training classes. >The governing bodies should address this but there must be a >enough flexibility in any regulation for the indiviual DZ to tailor it for > their unique situation. We have that now. S+TA's, directors or the USPA BOD can waive most BSR's for particular needs of a DZ. For example, Hawaii has a waiver for the wind limits for students because the winds are strong but very steady there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites teason 0 #43 July 6, 2004 Um, guys, are we debating the same point? As I mentioned before, we need a structure and a perhaps a license (CoP) for canopy skills. I believe, however that there are more considerations that must be taken into account. Regulation without forethought is always a bad idea. As I said previously QuoteThat's (the variables)the argument for DZ regulation but we still need a basic regulation for across the board standardization I beleive that DZs can't look to the regs to save us and think "we can do this, the SIM (PIM) says its OK". Your comment on pull altitude is exactly what I'm talking about. Going beyond the BSRs for the different demands of different situations. I've jumped at too many DZs that treat the BSR minimum as the standard. I've seen jumpers turn off AADs 'cause they "open at 2200 at it might fire at 2500'". Keeping the AAD on and opening higher is a foreign concept! Somehow the minmum became the rule of thumb! I'm agreeing with you on the BSR thing but the execution of such is the issue. We must go beyond the basic. As I suggested before, a progression chart which takes into account the wide variety of training and DZ scenarios out there may be the answer but it's not simple. Simplicity and consistancy are the best training tools, I agree, but it can't too simple. What's the balance? I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,421 #44 July 6, 2004 >I believe, however that there are more considerations that must be > taken into account. Regulation without forethought is always a bad > idea. Agreed, but (say) ten years of waiting, resulting in another 70 preventable deaths and hundreds of serious injuries, is also a bad idea. We've been talking about this, proposing solutions, and experimenting with canopy training now for at least four years. I wouldn't want to see it go on another six. >I've jumped at too many DZs that treat the BSR minimum as the > standard. I've seen jumpers turn off AADs 'cause they "open at > 2200 at it might fire at 2500'". I've pulled at close to 2000 feet on several hundred jumps with a cypres, on canopies ranging from a snively spectre to a slam-open sabre. Never had a misfire. There may well be people who turn off their cypreses for some reason, but opening at 2200 is not a valid one - unless you have a canopy that snivels an absurd amount of time. But let me extend your example. Let's say that there is a DZ where people pull at 2000 feet because "that's what USPA says we should open at." It may well be that someone jumping a Xaos 69 needs to open higher than 2000 feet; they may believe that 2000 feet, since it's what USPA 'says' is the correct altitude to open at. You think that's a bad thing. But someone that foolish is probably better off with a minimum opening altitude; someone that foolish may well decide to open at 1000 feet without a BSR, and opening at 2000 feet is more survivable than opening at 1000 feet. These rules are not intended to enforce safe behavior. They are intended to keep people alive until they can make good decisions on their own, and to get people the education that will keep them alive. A simple rule will be enforced. A complex rule (like, multiply your opening altitude by your wingloading unless it's a fast-opening square) will not be used. As an example - exit separation is really pretty easy to figure out. It's (aircraft ground speed + wind speed at opening altitude) * time between groups. Yet when I wrote an article based on that, the people at USPA were worried that there was too much math. That's the sort of complexity they are uncomfortable with. So if we come up with a proposal that uses wingloading times the planform correction factor times the small-canopy adjustment factor divided by the density altitude, no one will use it and people will continue to jump whatever they want. Skydivers can't do math. >Simplicity and consistancy are the best training tools, I agree, but it > can't too simple. What's the balance? I think the most complex thing that will fly is a table that can be read without any math, correction factors or asterisks. # of jumps or licenses relating to a wing loading is simple enough (I think.) Even a 2D table that lists exit weight vs experience, and has a max loading in each square, could work. Anything more complex (that involves math) will not be used. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites teason 0 #45 July 7, 2004 QuoteI've pulled at close to 2000 feet on several hundred jumps with a cypres, on canopies ranging from a snively spectre to a slam-open sabre. Never had a misfire. There may well be people who turn off their cypreses for some reason, but opening at 2200 is not a valid one - unless you have a canopy that snivels an absurd amount of time. I'm talking about a 12000J. They're safe as long as you respect the warning lable that reads "main canopy activation must at least 1500' above the set altitude" A friend of mine decided to turn his off on the advice of other jumpers and instructors. He hit the runway at line stretch. But let's not talk about AADs, that's another forum and that accident was a long time ago. I brought up a paralell with licenses earlier. Just like the current A-D licenses, it could set a path of goals for jumpers to follow. Jumpers at DZs with less adequate canopy coaching would progress at a rate consistant with the training they are recieving. QuoteI think the most complex thing that will fly is a table that can be read without any math, correction factors or asterisks. # of jumps or licenses relating to a wing loading is simple enough (I think.) Even a 2D table that lists exit weight vs experience, and has a max loading in each square, could work. Anything more complex (that involves math) will not be used. Absolutely right! The CSPA has a skills grid for jumper progression. It has different goals and stages to work through. It is so difficult to read that I have never ever seen a coach or instructor use it. At my DZ, I had to create my own skills grid in an easy to read format complete with color codes just to get my coaches to use it. A grid that isn't used is a waste of paper. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 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
SkydiveNFlorida 0 #32 July 2, 2004 QuoteYou were kicked off TWO DZ's.. Actually, Ron. You are misinformed. That does happen, you know? I was not "kicked off" of any dzs, but one dz told me that if I wanted to jump there I would not be jumping an elliptical. I opted to leave with my elliptical canopy at that time. Instead of spreading bullshit, you should check your sources/info. Anyone who tells you I was kicked off of any dz is completely incorrect. edit to add: furthermore, in response to : QuotePeople....If you are going to take advice or opinions from someone...make sure they were not considered DANGEROUS under canopy before you take canopy advice from them. I am not ADVISING anyone in this thread. I gave my opinion of strict rules concerning types of canopies, and even excluded wings that I have had no experience under and have no opinion on (xbraced). So, once again, your need to bash someone has caused your fingers to type a reply faster than your mind can comprehend what you have read. Not the first time, and won't be the last I am sure. Angela. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #33 July 2, 2004 QuoteActually, Ron. You are misinformed. That does happen, you know? I was not "kicked off" of any dzs, but one dz told me that if I wanted to jump there I would not be jumping an elliptical. I opted to leave with my elliptical canopy at that time. Instead of spreading bullshit, you should check your sources/info. Anyone who tells you I was kicked off of any dz is completely incorrect. Well sorry I have 4 people telling me you were kicked off, and only one (you) telling me you were not. either way at least one DZ said you could not jump that canopy there...And I was told there were reasons...So for you to claim that you did fine...Well there are atleast 4 people and one DZ that thinks otherwise."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,421 #34 July 2, 2004 Could we not have this fight again, please? PM's would be a much better way to decide who said what to who. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #35 July 2, 2004 QuoteCould we not have this fight again, please? PM's would be a much better way to decide who said what to who. the problem is Bill, she is going to say something like: Quoteellipticals are not the death traps they are made out to be for low-timers who take the initiative to get canopy training (at low wingloading). Once you get used to the controls, it becomes second nature But she has a very bad history of canopy flight. People need to know her opinion while she is fine to give it is NOT the best opinion out there. QuoteI was kicked off a completely different dz than that one due to the fact that they didn't want me jumping an elliptical at 44 jumps. QuoteStupidity does kill. And, certainly the longer time you spend in the sport, the more you understand risk. Of course, for some it takes longer than others, but it just sucks that because a couple of guys want to load a canopy they are not ready for extremely high, those that can competently set our their limits (which may not fall within the restrictions, but they are not completely radical) have to pay with tight restrictions. But like she said...The longer you are in this sport the more you understand risks...Which is why those with the expereince should be listend to. and that some it takes longer than others.....And that some don't know what those limits are...how can a new jumper be sure THEY know their limits when others don't?...I bet they ALL thought they did. and to skydivenflorida:Quote So, once again, your need to bash someone has caused your fingers to type a reply faster than your mind can comprehend what you have read. Not the first time, and won't be the last I am sure. Maybe you need to . . . Enough!"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,421 #36 July 2, 2004 >the problem is Bill, she is going to say something like: She's already said that, and you've already replied. You've had this fight with her before. From the forum rules: ------------- Posts that are repetitive in nature (i.e. Dead Horses) may be removed or locked at the discretion of the moderators. ------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #37 July 5, 2004 Quote>the problem is Bill, she is going to say something like: She's already said that, and you've already replied. You've had this fight with her before. From the forum rules: ------------- Posts that are repetitive in nature (i.e. Dead Horses) may be removed or locked at the discretion of the moderators. Then lock it or delete it.....For that matter ban me. As long as she keeps giving canopy advice and tries to show a "blue print" of a canopy progression)I am going to contine to point out that she is not the best source. Now I hear she is better than she was, but that does not make her progression good. Its called doing what I can to prevent people from getting fucked up. Newbies cruze this site and see her and use her as the example... "Well, she did it" And if they only know HALF the story she looks like a success story..(well she didn't DIE so she is not a really bad example, but not a good example) Like I said, I am going to always try to keep people safe...You may not like that, or my methods.....But thats something I can live with...If you cant...Well thats your choice."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teason 0 #38 July 5, 2004 Yeah this is the same s**t different thread. I was thinking about cutting and pasting all my previous ones together, saves me the typing.But just to muddy the waters a little here, are we forgetting about change in wingloading for novices? Take a 100 lbs girl and a 200lbs guy. Lets say they both learn on a manta and then go to a 1:1 wingloading. Why is it less safe for the girl? Change in wingloading! Another point. What if you jump at a new DZ where barely anyone has an elliptical HP highly loaded canopy and those who do lack proper coaching skills? What if your DZ is in a northern region and you don't jump for 6 months and when you do, it's only weekends? I've noticed that it usually takes a jumper 3 seasons to be aware of his own lack of awareness. These are the factors that could play a major role as I see them 1.) currency 2.) training available 3.) previous canopy size 4.) individual skill/ego level That's the argument for DZ regulation but we still need a basic regulation for across the board standarization. Perhapse a canopy CoP may be the answer here as well as a pregression chart. I believe that one of the problems here is that there aren't any proper goals set forth for the learning jumper. All they focus on is the guy they see swooping and not the steps that must be taken to get there. WE NEED STRUCTURE! Otherwise there is only choas and misunderstanding. If a jumper is upset that he can't jump in higher winds, he has a goal set in front of him. He can work toward a higher CoP. If he is upset that he can't jump a smaller elliptical canopy, he feels that others veiw him as less of a jumper because he doesn't understand the path to get there. That's why some 100 jump wonders won't listen. The more experience we have, the more it seems like we are rubbing it in their faces. When I got my first canopy, I went from an f-111 manta loaded at .65 to the manufacturers' ablsolute maximum loading on a sabre 170 which was 187 lbs. at the time! Not very extreme. Things have changed in the real world but not in our regulations. We critcize the FAA for not keeping up, how about us! We've changed the way we look at acceptable wing loading for experienced jumpers. Student training, however, has not changed that much. I know there are some DZs that have advanced student canopy skills training, but there is nothing formal or standarized to guide the average DZ. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #39 July 5, 2004 QuoteBut just to muddy the waters a little here, are we forgetting about change in wingloading for novices? Take a 100 lbs girl and a 200lbs guy. Lets say they both learn on a manta and then go to a 1:1 wingloading. Why is it less safe for the girl? Change in wingloading! Jumper 1 has a Sabre1 that opens in 300 feet. Jumper 2 has a crossfire that takes 800 feet to open. They both have "D" licenses. They both pull at 2,000 feet. Who is safer? If someone is pulling at 2,000 feet and sitting in at 1,000 feet, the DZO can still tell the jumper to pull higher. If someone is within the WL BSR limits, but still un-safe, the DZO can still prevent them from jumping the too-small canopy. QuoteAnother point. What if you jump at a new DZ where barely anyone has an elliptical HP highly loaded canopy and those who do lack proper coaching skills? Then you will have to travel to get the coaching. QuoteWhat if your DZ is in a northern region and you don't jump for 6 months and when you do, it's only weekends? Then you will have to compensate by jumping a larger canopy. Jumping only 6 onths out of the year does not lend itself to jumping a small HP canopy safely. QuoteWE NEED STRUCTURE! Otherwise there is only choas and misunderstanding. I agree. QuotePerhapse a canopy CoP A what? QuoteIf he is upset that he can't jump a smaller elliptical canopy, he feels that others veiw him as less of a jumper because he doesn't understand the path to get there. That's why some 100 jump wonders won't listen. The more experience we have, the more it seems like we are rubbing it in their faces. Exactly. QuoteThings have changed in the real world but not in our regulations. We critcize the FAA for not keeping up, how about us! We've changed the way we look at acceptable wing loading for experienced jumpers. Student training, however, has not changed that much. I know there are some DZs that have advanced student canopy skills training, but there is nothing formal or standarized to guide the average DZ. There is the ISP that USPA backed down from requiring. If the FAA steps in to regulate, they will restrict the hell out of skydiving. They are un-informed about skydiving. USPA needs to step up and get it done. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teason 0 #40 July 5, 2004 What's a CoP? ooops sorry. It was canuck talk for license. You see, in Canada we issue a Certificate of Proficiency. Licenses can only be given out by Gov't folk. Just symantecs. The other points were to illustrate that a regulation cannot be as clear cut and as simple as just wingloading/planform. There are a great deal of varibles to consider. There is a need, however, to set goals and create structure. The governing bodies should address this but there must be a enough flexibility in any regulation for the indiviual DZ to tailor it for their unique situation. The USPA/CSPA/BPA or whatever body you belong to cannot do this alone. That maybe why it has been rejected so far. DZs must be factored into the equation. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #41 July 5, 2004 QuoteThe other points were to illustrate that a regulation cannot be as clear cut and as simple as just wingloading/planform. Why not? There are a lot of factors that contribute to a 'safe' pull altitude, but the BSR is based strictly on jump numbers/license and that BSR seems to work. DerekQuoteQuoteThe other points were to illustrate that a regulation cannot be as clear cut and as simple as just wingloading/planform. Why not? There are a lot of factors that contribute to a 'safe' pull altitude, but the BSR is based strictly on jump numbers/license and that BSR seems to work. Quote he governing bodies should address this but there must be a enough flexibility in any regulation for the indiviual DZ to tailor it for their unique situation. That is why the BSR can be exceeded w/ the appropriate signature. The proposed WL BSR has flexibility built in. If a jumper wants to jump a canopy within the limits, but that is still too much for them, the DZO doesn’t have to let them. The BSR must be simple to be effective. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,421 #42 July 5, 2004 >The other points were to illustrate that a regulation cannot be as >clear cut and as simple as just wingloading/planform. I think it can be. Keep in mind that the purpose of such a regulation is not to "keep people safe" it is to get them into canopy training classes. >The governing bodies should address this but there must be a >enough flexibility in any regulation for the indiviual DZ to tailor it for > their unique situation. We have that now. S+TA's, directors or the USPA BOD can waive most BSR's for particular needs of a DZ. For example, Hawaii has a waiver for the wind limits for students because the winds are strong but very steady there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teason 0 #43 July 6, 2004 Um, guys, are we debating the same point? As I mentioned before, we need a structure and a perhaps a license (CoP) for canopy skills. I believe, however that there are more considerations that must be taken into account. Regulation without forethought is always a bad idea. As I said previously QuoteThat's (the variables)the argument for DZ regulation but we still need a basic regulation for across the board standardization I beleive that DZs can't look to the regs to save us and think "we can do this, the SIM (PIM) says its OK". Your comment on pull altitude is exactly what I'm talking about. Going beyond the BSRs for the different demands of different situations. I've jumped at too many DZs that treat the BSR minimum as the standard. I've seen jumpers turn off AADs 'cause they "open at 2200 at it might fire at 2500'". Keeping the AAD on and opening higher is a foreign concept! Somehow the minmum became the rule of thumb! I'm agreeing with you on the BSR thing but the execution of such is the issue. We must go beyond the basic. As I suggested before, a progression chart which takes into account the wide variety of training and DZ scenarios out there may be the answer but it's not simple. Simplicity and consistancy are the best training tools, I agree, but it can't too simple. What's the balance? I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,421 #44 July 6, 2004 >I believe, however that there are more considerations that must be > taken into account. Regulation without forethought is always a bad > idea. Agreed, but (say) ten years of waiting, resulting in another 70 preventable deaths and hundreds of serious injuries, is also a bad idea. We've been talking about this, proposing solutions, and experimenting with canopy training now for at least four years. I wouldn't want to see it go on another six. >I've jumped at too many DZs that treat the BSR minimum as the > standard. I've seen jumpers turn off AADs 'cause they "open at > 2200 at it might fire at 2500'". I've pulled at close to 2000 feet on several hundred jumps with a cypres, on canopies ranging from a snively spectre to a slam-open sabre. Never had a misfire. There may well be people who turn off their cypreses for some reason, but opening at 2200 is not a valid one - unless you have a canopy that snivels an absurd amount of time. But let me extend your example. Let's say that there is a DZ where people pull at 2000 feet because "that's what USPA says we should open at." It may well be that someone jumping a Xaos 69 needs to open higher than 2000 feet; they may believe that 2000 feet, since it's what USPA 'says' is the correct altitude to open at. You think that's a bad thing. But someone that foolish is probably better off with a minimum opening altitude; someone that foolish may well decide to open at 1000 feet without a BSR, and opening at 2000 feet is more survivable than opening at 1000 feet. These rules are not intended to enforce safe behavior. They are intended to keep people alive until they can make good decisions on their own, and to get people the education that will keep them alive. A simple rule will be enforced. A complex rule (like, multiply your opening altitude by your wingloading unless it's a fast-opening square) will not be used. As an example - exit separation is really pretty easy to figure out. It's (aircraft ground speed + wind speed at opening altitude) * time between groups. Yet when I wrote an article based on that, the people at USPA were worried that there was too much math. That's the sort of complexity they are uncomfortable with. So if we come up with a proposal that uses wingloading times the planform correction factor times the small-canopy adjustment factor divided by the density altitude, no one will use it and people will continue to jump whatever they want. Skydivers can't do math. >Simplicity and consistancy are the best training tools, I agree, but it > can't too simple. What's the balance? I think the most complex thing that will fly is a table that can be read without any math, correction factors or asterisks. # of jumps or licenses relating to a wing loading is simple enough (I think.) Even a 2D table that lists exit weight vs experience, and has a max loading in each square, could work. Anything more complex (that involves math) will not be used. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teason 0 #45 July 7, 2004 QuoteI've pulled at close to 2000 feet on several hundred jumps with a cypres, on canopies ranging from a snively spectre to a slam-open sabre. Never had a misfire. There may well be people who turn off their cypreses for some reason, but opening at 2200 is not a valid one - unless you have a canopy that snivels an absurd amount of time. I'm talking about a 12000J. They're safe as long as you respect the warning lable that reads "main canopy activation must at least 1500' above the set altitude" A friend of mine decided to turn his off on the advice of other jumpers and instructors. He hit the runway at line stretch. But let's not talk about AADs, that's another forum and that accident was a long time ago. I brought up a paralell with licenses earlier. Just like the current A-D licenses, it could set a path of goals for jumpers to follow. Jumpers at DZs with less adequate canopy coaching would progress at a rate consistant with the training they are recieving. QuoteI think the most complex thing that will fly is a table that can be read without any math, correction factors or asterisks. # of jumps or licenses relating to a wing loading is simple enough (I think.) Even a 2D table that lists exit weight vs experience, and has a max loading in each square, could work. Anything more complex (that involves math) will not be used. Absolutely right! The CSPA has a skills grid for jumper progression. It has different goals and stages to work through. It is so difficult to read that I have never ever seen a coach or instructor use it. At my DZ, I had to create my own skills grid in an easy to read format complete with color codes just to get my coaches to use it. A grid that isn't used is a waste of paper. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
