Wingloading policies

[heims 0]

I posted this on another thread, but it seemed to get lost in passionate discussion about other things, so here it is again.

I would like to know what more experienced skydivers think/know about a few things.

What do we do to change the death trend (due to landing issues)?

There will always be those who believe their skills are better than they really are, and nobody is going to be able to verbally convince them otherwise. (And apparently we have instructional rating holders who guide newbies to be aggressive if they want to.) So why not use the experience of long time skydivers to design and require a skills test for downsizing? What are the objections to this? If canopy pilots are as good as they claim, then shouldn't they be able to pass a skills tests?

I have read previous letters about this (including the one in parachutist I think last year) and have read the new information in the SIMS, but I still haven't seen anything really happen. What does it take to make a change?

I also wonder why someone can just "go to another DZ" that doesn't know them and be allowed to jump a canopy that is beyond their skill. How can we change this? How many DZs actually ask about wingloading on waivers or at check in when someone new to the DZ arrives?

Story: I recently had a 68 jump wonder who was just coming back from a year layoff, tell me he was planning to downsize to a 135 (he actually said he really wanted a 120 but I at least got him off that one). The last canopy he jumped was a Monarch 155 with a wingloading of 1.2. He's gained a little weight over the year off too (5-10 pounds). He only has an A-License partly due to the fact that he doesn't have the accuracies necessary to get his B. I heard he sent for a Cobalt 135 demo. I don't know if they actually sent it to him. (I hope not.)

What (if any) policies do canopy manufacturers have regarding their demo programs? Does anyone have any experience with whether a manufacturer would send the demo to someone in this situation? (of course I assume (yes, I know. Dangerous.) he didn't lie on the form). Do manufacturers actually check the facts (in other words, call the dealer/DZ listed on the form to verify anything if they ask for a contact)?

I would love to hear some thoughts.

Blue skies,
Sherri

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

What does it take to make a change?

DZO's have to want to change things. Skydivers will not band together enough to make a change. USPA does what DZO's the DZO's bidding. So, get DZO's to want to change things by presenting what is in it for them (how they will make more money) and things will change.

Research what happened to the ISP program.

Sorry, but that is the way it is.

Derek

[Auryn 0]

Quote

I posted this on another thread, but it seemed to get lost in passionate discussion about other things, so here it is again.

I would like to know what more experienced skydivers think/know about a few things.

What do we do to change the death trend (due to landing issues)?

There will always be those who believe their skills are better than they really are, and nobody is going to be able to verbally convince them otherwise. (And apparently we have instructional rating holders who guide newbies to be aggressive if they want to.) So why not use the experience of long time skydivers to design and require a skills test for downsizing? What are the objections to this? If canopy pilots are as good as they claim, then shouldn't they be able to pass a skills tests?

I have read previous letters about this (including the one in parachutist I think last year) and have read the new information in the SIMS, but I still haven't seen anything really happen. What does it take to make a change?

I also wonder why someone can just "go to another DZ" that doesn't know them and be allowed to jump a canopy that is beyond their skill. How can we change this? How many DZs actually ask about wingloading on waivers or at check in when someone new to the DZ arrives?

Story: I recently had a 68 jump wonder who was just coming back from a year layoff, tell me he was planning to downsize to a 135 (he actually said he really wanted a 120 but I at least got him off that one). The last canopy he jumped was a Monarch 155 with a wingloading of 1.2. He's gained a little weight over the year off too (5-10 pounds). He only has an A-License partly due to the fact that he doesn't have the accuracies necessary to get his B. I heard he sent for a Cobalt 135 demo. I don't know if they actually sent it to him. (I hope not.)

What (if any) policies do canopy manufacturers have regarding their demo programs? Does anyone have any experience with whether a manufacturer would send the demo to someone in this situation? (of course I assume (yes, I know. Dangerous.) he didn't lie on the form). Do manufacturers actually check the facts (in other words, call the dealer/DZ listed on the form to verify anything if they ask for a contact)?

I would love to hear some thoughts.

Blue skies,
Sherri

If a person is going to downsize, and does it anyway despite our best advice, then we are left with one thing... EDUCATION.

I think we have already done alot of what is necessary to reach this safety end.. Education about the device that you fly, from day one. "If you initiate a turn your parachute will dive, and if it is low to the ground you will hit the ground in that configuration and die.." I teach it, and I have seen countless other people teach this over the last two years and I think it is beginning to work.. We have only 3 fatalities total in the US this year and we are allready halfway through the year..

granted, we are just beginning the peak season, but I think this bodes well since in years past I have seen 10 plus fatals at this point in the year.

EDUCATION is the key, not limitation of choice. We, as coaches and instructors, have to continue to tell people about the risks of the canopy choices they make, and we can now back them up with fact.... IE "So and So I knew didnt pay attention and is dead now."

We need to keep up the education, not the limitation. I personally jump at 1.6:1 and riser carve every chance I get, and love it, never hooking. I hope I have been a part of this education, initiating a gradual carve that is safe and still provides a great surf.. I hope my students see this and say "When I have hundreds of jumps I can do this reasonable high po landing and do that" I think we are starting to see the results of our education efforts, teaching FLAT turns for obstacle avoidance, and teaching what hard low turns do.


Blue Skies !

Bryan

D27808

[Chrisky 0]

Get people to examine their own skills and judge themselves more correctly? Ahh well...

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[billvon 2,425]

>EDUCATION is the key, not limitation of choice.

I agree, and I also think that the only purpose of such limitation of choice is as a form of coercion to get people the education they need. I think wing loading limits are a good idea _only_ if you can ignore them by getting the right education.

[crazy 0]

Quote

What do we do to change the death trend (due to landing issues)?

There is a lot of fuss about this (and it's not from yesterday), there are many arbitrary rules, but nothing strikingly reliable and efficient came out. When flying schools will be as popular as AADs, maybe we will see an evolution (in either direction), but this won't happen any time soon.

Quote

So why not use the experience of long time skydivers to design and require a skills test for downsizing? What are the objections to this?

A strong objection is that old timers and experienced skydivers don't necessarily know better than others. If you check the fatalities by experience levels, it's not clear that experienced skydivers are safer than beginners. Some years, it's apparently the opposite.
Roughly, every year, out of 1000 skydivers, 1 dies... Hence 999 survive. Surviving several years doesn't mean that you are exceptionally safe and knowledgeable, it just means that you are part of the huge majority of the flock. Even dumb and reckless skydivers have a fair chance to survive many years in the sport and several thousands of jumps (actually nothing shows that they die more than smart and cautious skydivers).

Quote

If canopy pilots are as good as they claim, then shouldn't they be able to pass a skills tests?

So far, nobody can design a test addressing the problem effectively. Some people have occult lists of "life saving skills", but all these lists are based mainly on the personal beliefs of their authors, and they usually fail to address some important traits of landing injuries and deaths. Coolness, anticipation, sobriety, and ability to spot might be more relevant to the problem than any flying skill or wing loading policy.

--
Come
Skydive Asia