Would you jump at a DZ with a wingloading rule?

[outlawphx 1]

In the spirit of today's polls. What if your DZ implemented a wingloading rule that followed the general 1.x lbs per 1 sqft guidline, where x is equal to your jump numbers divided by 100.

i.e.
1.1 for 100 jump skydivers
1.2 for 200 jump skydivers
etc.

[packerboy 3]

I'd have to downsize

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

[Brains 2]

I would, but only because i already fit into the criteria for my jump numbers. I would not jump at a dz if i had to upsize just to do so. If it were my home dz, well that would be a little different.

Never look down on someone, unless they are going down on you.

[outlawphx 1]

Well, it's about time!

[peregrinerose 0]

I wouldn't just because different canopies are different, so wingloading doesn't really tell the whole story. Every jumper is different. There may be students who probably land better than I do, and 1000+ jumpers who don't land as well. Wing loadings are nice as guidelines, but I don't put a lot of stock in numbers being etched in stone criteria.

Of course this is coming from an almost 100 jump wonder. Currently working on downsizing from a .9/1 to a 1/1 canopy.

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[Designer 0]

What he said.It's nice to have guidelines.The facts are,if you follow the flight pattern and are a conservative,cautious canopy pilot you will survive 99 times out of a 100.Or is it more like 999 out of 1000?You just need to be aware that anything can and could happen on any giving day or jump!

[EricaH 0]

I would if they had a qualification section where you could load more sooner if you passed certain tests.

But it wouldn't matter, I'm w/in the parameters anyway.

There is no can't. Only lack of knowledge or fear. Only you can fix your fear.

PMS #227 (just like the TV show)

[billvon 2,427]

It would depend on the rule.

I've heard some DZ's that use the rule you mention. I heard of another one that simply prohibits any loading over 1.5 to 1, and another that has restrictions until your D license then none. That's one reason I think USPA should be coming up with these - it's a lot easier to deal with one common WL restriction than to have a dozen different ones from coast to coast. "Going to Air Adventures? Means I have to swap out my Crossfire2 149 for my Sabre1 120, cause they don't allow ellipticals without a D license."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It would depend on the rule.

What he says. A well reasoned one, great. One that substitutes simplicity for thinking....well, there's always Lodi.

[WrongWay 0]

I would. I'd feel safer to be honest.

And I'd fit VERY WELL into that range with my wingloading.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[popsjumper 2]

Yep...even if it meant downsizing.
Maybe it would weed out some of the future incident reports.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[FallingOsh 0]

In my humble opinion, Jen pretty much sums it up. Every canopy is different and every person is different. If that rule were in place, I would be jumping a 1.044 loaded canopy. Should the rule have anything to do with what type canopy that loading refers to? A Corssfire would still be a bad idea for me even at 1.044. I bought my first rig about a month ago and decided on a Sabre 170 that I load at about 1.17. I wanted a canopy I could have fun with and learn on, but not kill myself. I trusted my DZO (D-597) and my own confidence when deciding on the 170. I'm extrememly happy with the choice and wouldn't have done otherwise. My roommate, however, bought a 150 that he loads at about 1.1 He still hasn't figured out how to properly land it. Like Jen said, everyone is different and we need to depend on the elders to help us make decisions we've never made before.


That's all I have to say about that.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[pilotdave 0]

Rules like that exist (at some dropzones) because 1.17 at ~40 jumps IS dangerous. You CAN kill yourself jumping that. You can kill yourself jumping anything of course, but you are less likely to do so at a lower loading. I don't know where that nasty rumor came from that you can't have fun skydiving at lower wingloadings. I hit 500 jumps last weekend and have never jumped anything loaded as high as 1.1. And yes, I'm having PLENTY of fun.

1.17 isn't exactly a crazy wingloading for a first canopy, but it IS aggressive. You got advice to buy it and it sounds like you're able to handle it fine, so there isn't necessarily anything wrong with it. But do you think you'd have less fun, learn less, or be more likely to die under a 190?

Dave

[kelpdiver 2]

just be vary of hot days where density altitude comes into play. You may find yourself over the envelope.

I did on a jump at Elsinore in August - W/L of a spectre in the 1.14 range pushed to at least 1.2. Funky winds and who knows wtf I did, and I ended up landing sideways and making good use of my helmet.

[quade 3]

Would depend on the rule.

There is more to piloting a canopy than simple numbers alone, however, the numbers are useful as a base.

I'd like to see the USPA have a rule with an option to test up to a higher level, then again, some of us have been saying this for a number of years and nothing has happened.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[scrublink 0]

No. I don't think that hard and fast rules are always the way to go in this sport. If USPA decides to do something like this (or a group of DZs in a region), then what is next. Mandatory AADs and RSLs? I know some drop zones already have rules like this but luckily they are few and far between. Skydiving isn't a sport that seems to attract a bunch of conforming sheep. It seems that it does attract a lot of people with free will and opinions. Evidenced in these forum every day.

[quade 3]

Quote

Skydiving isn't a sport that seems to attract a bunch of conforming sheep. It seems that it does attract a lot of people with free will and opinions.

Some might say this is precisely why a few more rules are needed.

All of these people with a bit too much "free will" that are of the opinion they know what they're doing, when in fact, they don't have a clue.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[scrublink 0]

I don't mind rules that keep people safe from someone elses action. Nor do I mind good common sense rules. I just start to get very nervous when some group of people get together and try to decide what is right for everybody else, and they just lump groups in together.

I don't swoop, but swoopers don't bother me. As long as they don't endanger someone else. I don't really car what they do to themselves. They are big boys and girls and hopefully are fully aware of the risks that they are taking for their fun. (Don't take this to mean that I want to see them get hurt or that I would enjoy same). I jump an elliptical canopy loaded at 1.467:1. (It might be slightly higher after lunch), but I am known as a conservative canopy pilot. I have had this same canopy for nine years and know it fairly well. All of a sudden a group or DZ makes a rule and that is going to make me unsafe? It just doesn;t add up for me. I have seen a lot of changes in this sport since I started packing in 1984 and most of the rules have IMO been arrived at with a dose of common sense. I would like to see this continue. After reading about DZ's that require AADs and some that have WL restrictions I am not sure that common sense and self policing is going to be around much longer.

[billvon 2,427]

>I just start to get very nervous when some group of people get
> together and try to decide what is right for everybody else, and they
> just lump groups in together.

We do that all the time. I don't know a DZ on the planet who will let a first time jumper jump solo without instruction, even if they swear up and down that they can do it and they understand the risks.

>They are big boys and girls and hopefully are fully aware of the risks
> that they are taking for their fun.

They're not aware; that's the problem.

>All of a sudden a group or DZ makes a rule and that is going to
>make me unsafe?

It's not going to make you any safer or any less safe. If it's USPA, and we get our version of these things incorporated, all that will happen is that you will have to demonstrate that you really _are_ safe, and then nothing will change. You can continue to jump the same canopy.

If each DZ starts its own rules, then (of course) you may find yourself unable to jump your canopy.

[outlawphx 1]

Quote

After reading about DZ's that require AADs and some that have WL restrictions I am not sure that common sense and self policing is going to be around much longer.

I totally agree, and that's what I think these polls today are getting at.

At some point we passed from being a family that would look after our own into this large community that feels the need for rules to police other skydivers.

Ten years ago, if someone cut me off under canopy, I'd be giving him sh*t the moment we landed.

Two weekends ago some bastard flew his base leg the opposite direction as the twenty other jumpers on the load and tried to wrap me at 300 ft. I saw him coming (he was staring 90 degrees away at the landing area), so I had to throw a quick turn to avoid a collision. Now I jump at a big dropzone, and I've never seen this guy before. I didn't say anything except to the two jumpers I was jumping with who saw the whole thing unfold. I suppose I should of said something, but like I said, we're a community now, not a family. On a side note, I heard Brian Burke calling him to manifest as I walked into the hangar. The all seeing one!

[weegegirl 2]

I like the fact that skydiving is generally a self regulated sport. Granted we have USPA and FAA to instill some rules.. jumping through clouds... etc. That's fine. But as far as wing loading, RSLs, Cypresses.... I really hope these stay up to the individual. Though I agree with a lot of the safety reasons behind rules such as this, I am 100% Pro-Choice.

[crotalus01 0]

i have been told that there ar DZs that i cannot jump my current canopy at so i am dealing with that restriction already (Sabre 190 loaded at 1.2). it doesnt really bother me as i would likely rent gear if at one of those DZs or get an evaluation dive on my own gear. if my home DZ adapted the rule i would most likely not be affected since my S&TAs and the DZO were the ones who encouraged me to buy the size canopy i have, and i have been cleared to fly it by both our S&TAs.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[scrublink 0]

Bill, I know we impose restrictions on studens ( and others) that is what I was talking about when I said common sense rules.

If someone is not aware, then they shouldn't be jumping. Dont DZs ground people that are unsafe anymore. It used to be done a lot more frequently. I don't like jumping with dangerous people.

I guess I am not making my position very clear. I am not an "outlaw" jumper nor do I wish to jump at a DZ that caters to them. I think that the more rules we write down to cover certain criteria (ie. WL) then we open ourselves up to all sorts of rules that could affect everyone of us negatively.

I would not be opposed to people getting "canopy waiver" or some such thing. Some sort of licensing system. You can't drive a tractor trailer wihout a special license and that makes sense. Maybe some sort of system like in use for the PRO rating. The whole reason that knee jerk type rules bother me is that it seems that the people they were intended for ignore them or find a way around them. Sort of like the saying that "locks only keep honest people out".