USPA downsizing guidelines proposal

[HydroGuy 0]

Alex Allen, John Chisholm, Big Dave Gershfeld, and Eli Tompson all weigh less than or equal to 164#'s geared up...some SIGNIFIGANTLY less.

They all were part of the 53 way HD world record.

They would all be hampered from downsizing at jump 220 or 260.

They all possess the Y chromosome.

There are plenty of female skydivers with exit weights over 165#'s who wouldn't be subjected to the more stringent wl guidelines then either their lesser weighing male or female counterparts.

Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Why, does the canopy fly different for a 115 pound man vs a 115 pound woman?

Those are fascinating theories.

The consequences I was thinking of were of more women not being able to do serious CRW until a later point in their careers, much in the spirit of faulknerwn 's posts.

You know, the consequences of having a chart. Maybe it's an intended consequence, perhaps someone who knows how it was designed can tell us.

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

[MakeItHappen 15]

Performance Contours

This is what is missing from the tables, recommendations etc about WL guidelines.

We do not have a handle on what the 'equivalent performance' is based on canopy size and exit weight.

The reason we cannot calculate that is because the lift and drag coefficients of canopies are not known to the public. Get the mfgs to publish that data and anyone can generate performance equivalencies.

As a 'for instance', take a round canopy with a drag coefficient of 1.0.

Anyone can easily generate equivalent performance contours. See attached figure.

Until we can say that such-n-such WL on such-n-such size canopy is equivalent to another such-n-such WL on another such-n-such size canopy, we cannot have these arbitrarily assigned WL limits based on number of jumps (aka experience level). It makes no sense to do that.


.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[YISkyDive 0]

In my opinion, the chart may fix some stuff, but not nearly what we need in the industry. The industry is caught up too much in “coaching” and too much in earning profits and not focused on stressing that people should actually be flying their canopies.

I have flown a fairly good amount of canopies, everything form a Nitro150 for 40 jumps, as a demo, to 150 Specter, 170Diablo, 170Sabre2, 190 Hornet, 210 Triathlon, and a 280 Navigator (In reverse order). Sure, a 150 moderate performance canopy at 330 jumps has femur written on it to some- but those are the same people that only said dumb stuff to me in the first place. The best swooper I personally know, I complete ignore.

As a community we need to not get hung up on wing loading (within reason by all means) and focus much much more on the important thing- flying the parachute. The parachute is a device like a car, it takes both time and energy to learn its advanced techniques, but it can be done with no accident, no injury, and no personal loss.

I agree with Brian, as a community we all pull too low. That’s one reason why pilots have a harder time learning their canopies- another reason is the upset, unhappy, and angered seasoned veterans say pathetic things at best to students in trouble and in danger. Things such as “when you break your leg, we’ll call the ambulance and just keep jumping- because there is nothing else we can do!” is out there. Really out there.

If every DZ had a canopy coach like my coach, our femur rate would be so low itd be amazing. A 1.1 to 1.2 Wling is such a minor diffrence, that if a pilot cant hndel the 1.2, than they have no business being on the 1.1 As a community we need to help people understand how to fly parachutes, enforce the downsizing checklists, and help people jump as many sizes as possible. I am lucky, and jump at a DZ that has a size of something from 150 to 280. I owned my Diablo170 long before I jumped it, but over 50 jumps went from the 210 to the 170D. Some may consider it aggressive, others may say it was over drawn, but putting 12 or so jumps did help me a lot, but I just don’t think we can limit people to 170s till 500 jumps. Its just not possible, and in some cases, could be very dangerous.

Student wind conditions promote jumping in 14mph winds, 115pound girl, such as my fiance would have an extremely bad experience till 500 jumps. Hell, I wouldn’t let her skydive under those kinds of rules. Its just not reasonable. I promote safety, and I promote understanding of both sides in this issue, but I can personally say that on my canopy I have been between a 1.25 to a 1.4 WL with weight changes and back to a 1.25 and I never really noticed. Yet by the current recommended wing loading recommendations I jumped a span of almost 200 jumps. I see a problem.

The problem with this sport lies within all the lack of shared knowledge. Its also not all in books, DVDs, or radio shows.. Though they are all Great Resources. Im talking about the friendly walk from the landing area with your buddy. Hey man- your flare was good, but id try bumping it up another 3 feet. I rarely hear that. When I try to tell that to some people- that really could use the advice, well, I need not explain.

USPA needs to promote a great canopy education platform, AT LITTLE TO NO COST TO THE END USER. We already pay over 50 a month, and see little to nothing from it. A publication that I Could do with out, and insurance that more than likely I cannot use because when Im skydiving I’m around a lot of skydivers property. In short, I don’t like the organization, my experiences with it have been pathetic, especially in cases of privacy, but when people have 300 jumps, they cannot know anything.

My point is this- this is the time for USPA to set up. USPA has done a lot of work with the SIM- lets take it to a different like, CCIM- canopy control instruction manual, and yes, with a USPA logo on it. The CCIM can have every bit of non aerodynamic information out there- Brian and his works have covered that Extremely well, as well as any pilots hand book, so USPA wouldn’t have to waste their time researching and writing already good information. But what USPA could do is set and write a strong set of ‘norms’ that we could all be forced, objectively with no BSR, to follow.

Example, you see the 300 jump kid talking about a demoed nitro and you could approach him and say- On your previous canopy have you usefully landed on rear rise 15 times, done 45 degree+ flare turns, attempted reasonable induced speed approaches, landed accurately, and so on. If the answers to anyone is no, recommend them to cutaway the current canopy, practice the approaches some more- and be on their marry way.

This could also serve as an advanced canopy control basis too- a recommended # to start swooping, with requirements for levels. 100 jumps on double fronts, 10 signed off by an instructor that knows something, that demonstrate that pilot can understand all the basics induced speed. Then, bump em up to final direction turns of UP TO 90, UP 180, UP TO 270, and UP TO Unlimited. Many of the world’s best swoopers I;m sure could pitch in- and I Don’t mean speak about techniques- that somehow every one picks up at the DZ pull on a Friser.. I mean talk about the stuff people don’t pick up the DZ, everything from what “roll out” or sight picture they should be seeing, to how all the stuff they learned in the begin can be used.

My model basic outlines a reasonable canopy control progression that everyone- both canopy control pilots and swoopers alike should always know- how to fly parachutes low to the ground. I did that from 50 to 200 jumps. People thought I was dumb, stupid, and arrogant, and to an extent I guess I Was. But Under my Tri 210 I learned carving flare turns, flat turns, up to 90degree risers turns, and it Damn well saved my life twice-

As soon as I downsized to the Diablo- which many of you know is a higher performance diving canopy- within in 10 jumps of downsizing I was forced to A) land in a development and B) negotiate a head on canopy at 50feet to the ground. Either one of those incidents could have killed or severly injured the 300ft conservative canopy pilot.

USPA has a chance to set up as more than an organization that wastes my 50 dollars a year. Im with Dave on this one- USPA needs to fix things, some thing WL is the way to go- but I promise you that if limit peoples performance factor, its still not going to fix their lack of knowledge and the open good canopy incidents will no only fail to level off- they will climb. Skydiving is turning into a major mainstream sport. Technology has allowed it too, and so, USPA better be prepared to step up, and so should every single person at the DZ. Its time to take a step back in time, when coaching was free, and lending a hand didn’t mean getting slot + 10. Its time to be like my canopy coach and spend hours with devoted students for the enjoyment of giving back to the sport. Forget the Wling chart- Its not going to help- we need to focus on education, and if people arnt willing to learn, force them out of the sport because this sport is about knowledge, and I go to the DZ hoping to learn a new thing every day.


For the record- I’d like to thank Brian for carrying so much about the safety of all those in this sport that he spent a lot of his time developing and thinking and re thinking the chart. I think its what we need to see more of, from a lot of seasoned people, because shit, I have 329 jumps, what the hell can I possibly know, and I know that. I know that my ideas are limited to my experiences.

Id also like to again, thank my coach- for he has been the best and the most that anyone could have paid for let a lone for free. He must have spent over 50 hours with me by now, easily more, at not even a dimes cost to me. Thank you buddy, you kept me out of the hospital, and I Appreciate that. It means the world to me. You have given back to the sport, know it, don’t just feel it.

*Prepares for the attack*

[dharma1976 0]

Quote

Brian,

I applaud you and your efforts to make the sport safer.

If more people were like you, there would be less people with metal in them, or in the ground.

I think its a shame that more people listen to their egos, and not listen to people like you.

ah yes...I remember when Brian showed up at Sussex and was laughing at me and my other 200 jump wonders thinking of downsizing and he and his friend greg were like wow and to think we are all upsizing :-P

and a month later I broke my leg

Of course I wasnt taking Brians Course, nor had I read his book, which I did read like 6 times while laying around that winter cursing the metal in my leg...and now almost 300 jumps later I actually do fit into the list and I am jumping some smaller shit for my weight...so there... BTW I am like 205 or 210 out the door on a 129...

Dave

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[nate_1979 9]

Quote

I am curious. How many of you with more than 500 jumps would fall onto the chart when you had say from 50-200 jumps?

I dont have 500 jumps, but I am almost at 200 jumps, ... I exceded the charts recomendations (the bold black numbers) from about jump 30 to Now, (I go within the recomendation on my next jump) .. I however never exceeded the "minimum" size (the one in () ) for my main.. My reserve on the other hand was exceeded between jumps 30 and 60, during which I did have 1 reserve ride...

I have considered my canopy sizing to be very conservative. I still load LESS than a 1.1:1 wingloading..

FGF #???
I miss the sky...
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.

[Silverchic 0]

I think the main problem we have here is that people who fall in the right bracket in the chart really aren't too worried - but the people who are jumping smaller than what is on the chart will oppose it. I know I would - I wouldn't be able to jump my canopy for another 130 jumps or so.

I work on a minesite where the safety rules cater for the stupidest person - this is the same...this chart has been proposed because the "stupid" percent of the skydiving population will jump a canopy that is way beyond their abilities and they will hurt themselves! So then we think - how do we stop that? Sorry, I just think it's a little unfair for you guys out there that have proven that you are safe on your "small" canopy but this chart will not let you jump it.

How is it that we put man on the moon before we figured out it would be a good idea to put wheels on luggage?

[Remster 24]

Quote

because the "stupid" percent of the skydiving population will jump a canopy that is way beyond their abilities and they will hurt themselves!

Thats where you are dead wrong. Weather or not the numbers are perfect, they are not designed for the stupic percent. The stupid percent are given a bowling ball.

These numbers are what an average jumper should be under.

Remster

[pchapman 261]

What hasn't been discussed much in this thread has been the degree to which the downsizing 'guidelines' were intended to be MANDATORY, ADVISORY, or something in between.

I'd feel really sad at the loss of opportunities to newer jumpers if any downsizing chart became MANDATORY.

If it were ADVISORY only nobody could be stopped from doing anything, but the chart would still be a useful teaching & learning tool if it is well thought out and supported by the industry.

Some instructors (like myself) who started some years ago, never did go through a proper downsizing progression, making it more difficult to make specific recommendations for newer jumpers. Some industry guidelines would be handy to 'back up' anything one tells a newer skydiver. A recommendation to a newer jumper would be less likely to be seen as a personal attack.

If rules were mandatory, I'd want to see exceptions allowed, perhaps using sign-offs by senior instructors, perhaps only for limited periods of time in order to 'try out' a canopy. Abuse of the system would be a potential problem.

Jumping a canopy 'a few times' is different than jumping it 'all the time'. A jumper may be more conservative and not complacent with a canopy they are trying out for a short while, which helps keep the risk from rising too much. Even if you argue that the risk per jump is high, the total added risk may be relatively low because of the limited number of exposures to that risk.

My own experiences are probably not much different than that of others who started in the sport more than 10 years ago: For example, at 200 jumps, with only 11 jumps loaded over 1:1, I got the chance to borrow and jump a Jonathon 92 loaded at 1.8, on a hot, no wind day.

It was great fun to do a few jumps, although my run-outs weren't the prettiest. An ideal situation? No. Fun, exciting, and a good learning experience? Yes.

Had downloading rules been in effect, I could never have made such jumps. I'd feel guilty, sad, and hypocritical if I automatically denied others from having that kind of experience!

These are personal feelings only, biased by my own experience. They may not necessarily be appropriate these days, but I hope someone else out there has similar thoughts.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What hasn't been discussed much in this thread has been the degree to which the downsizing 'guidelines' were intended to be MANDATORY, ADVISORY, or something in between.

I wrote in the other thread (which does what you wish) that we've already argued on the mandate angles to death, would be nice to talk about the recommendations more instead. Look to the threads in early 2005.

[RedassSkychic 0]

Quote

Brian my only concern is that you are leaving small people (mostly women) at a disadvantage by them not getting to a WL of 1:1 within 500 jumps. I've flow a 135 at .9 and you are very limited on things you can do with the canopy especially with the risers presure. Because no matter what size you are if you are doing the right things to learn how to fly a canopy (like I did) you should have the ability to move on to the next level.

I don't think this is really limiting smaller jumpers. There is a ton to be learned on a 135 within 500 jumps. I dont think its unreasonable to spend that number of jumps working on accuracy, landing in brakes, down wind, braked turns, etc, etc, even if you can't "progress" by swooping because of the riser pressure. We're not talking about forever, only 500 jumps which in my opinion is not very many, especially when talking about canopy piloting. That said, I am loading my 135 at 1.1:1, not .9.

I also think a few more columns could be added to the right for the bigger boys.. wouldn't be too much trouble but might save some confusion. I see a fair amount of big boys with exit weight of 280 or more. Of course we could just extrapolate the chart ourselves.

Looks pretty good to me

• Quote

[billvon 2,396]

>What hasn't been discussed much in this thread has been the
> degree to which the downsizing 'guidelines' were intended to be
> MANDATORY, ADVISORY, or something in between.

I would imagine they would start off as advisory. Q is already talking about something like this in the SIM. If that didn't work, then you make them mandatory, or link them to license level.

>Had downloading rules been in effect, I could never have made such
>jumps. I'd feel guilty, sad, and hypocritical if I automatically denied
>others from having that kind of experience!

When I started skydiving, we'd regulary do demos with people with ~100 jumps - including into stadiums. Had a few problems but nothing serious. I don't feel guilty, sad or hypocritical that we are now a little smarter about such things. If anything I feel stupid for not taking them more seriously.