davelepka 4 #1 March 30, 2004 Facts: 1. 113 people have been killed under open canopies in the last ten years. 2. Of the 25 fatalities in 2003, 13 of them were jumpers with open and functioning canopies (11 landing problems and 2 collisions). 3. In the the review of the USPA board meeting, the section on Safety and Training had ZERO mention of implementing any sort of additional canopy training to any of the training progressions or licensing requirements. In all fairness, I do have it on good authority that the USPA is working on a solution, but shouldn't the number one killer of skydivers be the top priority? To the newer jumpers: Only two of the fatalities resulted from freefall collisions. You need to focus your time and effort on canopy training. Perfecting your 4-way technique or head down skills will do little to help you when you have to land off in gusty winds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #2 March 30, 2004 Quote To the newer jumpers: Only two of the fatalities resulted from freefall collisions. You need to focus your time and effort on canopy training. Perfecting your 4-way technique or head down skills will do little to help you when you have to land off in gusty winds. I think this goes for the less-new jumpers as well... nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
divnswoop 0 #3 March 30, 2004 Dave.....do you know anybody on the S&TA committee to address your issue?? ;) swoop Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f1shlips 2 #4 March 30, 2004 Quotewill do little to help you when you have to land off in gusty winds. How many of the fatalites had to do with landing off in gusty winds?-- drop zone (drop'zone) n. An incestuous sesspool of broken people. -- Attributed to a whuffo girlfriend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #5 March 30, 2004 Quotebut shouldn't the number one killer of skydivers be the top priority? This is a good point. Every USPA jumper is required to pass water training for his/her B-license. IIRC, there were zero deaths last year due to water (I may be wrong, but the number is far less than canopy injuries). There was a time when water landings were the number one cause of death for skydivers, and the problem was addressed with training (and more controllable parachutes ) Instituting canopy training is a bit more complicated. For water landing, one procedure can be taught in one evening. Flying a canopy takes a lot more skills and tricks. I would add to this that extended PLF training (or re-training) could save a lot of injuries or even a few lives. Not many people continue to practice PLFs after FJC.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #6 March 30, 2004 ***How many of the fatalites had to do with landing off in gusty winds? ------------------------------------------------- I added the gusty wind part just for effect. In reality, a number of the fatalities were attributed to last minute obstacle avoidence during an off field landing. Additionally, a number of non-fatal incidents reported on this website were either low turns off field, or a low turn onto the field after flying back from a long spot. Either way addtional training could have taught those jumpers better decision making, or more refined canopy control skills which could have minnimized their injuries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #7 March 30, 2004 ***do you know anybody on the S&TA committee to address your issue?? ;) ================================= My quote " I have it on good authority......", were both thinking of the same good authority. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #8 March 30, 2004 Anyone who deals with, stays in contact with, or knows the S&T Committee, or the S&T department of USPA knows a lot of effort is being placed on this topic. One of the problems they experience reflects the responses on the DZ.com. To many "experts" and "opinions". There may be a concern in the board relative to making some "free spirit" skydivers upset, so what? If you want to make a change, tell your RD, e-mail the NDs, e-mail the S&TA department so they have your printed position on this subject. Give them the support, the votes, the tools and they will make a change. You vote for them, support them, and let them know!!!! Blues, J.E. chase a rabbit or focus on the issueJames 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #9 March 30, 2004 There's an article in Parachutist this month about what revisions to the SIM that are being made regarding canopy control and training. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crazy 0 #10 March 31, 2004 QuoteIn reality, a number of the fatalities were attributed to last minute obstacle avoidence during an off field landing. Then, this is not really related to canopy training. It's much more related to spotting and management of the landing area.-- Come Skydive Asia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 330 #11 March 31, 2004 QuoteQuoteIn reality, a number of the fatalities were attributed to last minute obstacle avoidence during an off field landing. Then, this is not really related to canopy training. It's much more related to spotting and management of the landing area. Good canopy contol skills allow one to make last minute obstacle avoidance maneuvers without overcontrolling, or to be able to anticipate far enough ahead to minimize the need for late corrections. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,809 #12 March 31, 2004 >Then, this is not really related to canopy training. It's much more >related to spotting and management of the landing area. If private pilots are dying because they cannot land their aircraft at small airports (i.e. runways that are smaller than average but still well within the capabilities of their aircraft) the solution is to train them to land better, not to make all runways longer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #13 March 31, 2004 Great thread here. It's near and dear to my heart, 'cause I've seen a couple of people die under open canopies. My big question to all jumpers is this: Can you control your canopy well enough to do an in-brake accuracy approach and land on target? I can do it with my Stiletto loaded at 1.5, and I know really good jumpers that can do that on their crossbraced at over 2.0. The ability to do this shows you have control over your canopy, even under less than ideal conditions. In the old days, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, everyone shot accuracy at least some, and an off the DZ landing was not a killer. Of course, the wingloadings were much less, too, and that wasn't a bad thing either. If you don't have this skill, please learn it. It just may save your neck someday. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,883 #14 March 31, 2004 Quote>Then, this is not really related to canopy training. It's much more >related to spotting and management of the landing area. If private pilots are dying because they cannot land their aircraft at small airports (i.e. runways that are smaller than average but still well within the capabilities of their aircraft) the solution is to train them to land better, not to make all runways longer. True. But if private pilots are regularly running out of gas and then crashing while trying to make emergency landings off airport, maybe some education in fuel management is called for. Good decisions above 1000ft usually eliminate the need for radical maneuvering at 30ft agl.... 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
chuckbrown 0 #15 March 31, 2004 Good decisions above 1000ft usually eliminate the need for radical maneuvering at 30ft agl. _________________________________________________ This sums things up completely. You can have the best canopy control skills in the world, but if you use poor judgment, the ground will eat you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 4 #16 March 31, 2004 QuoteGood decisions above 1000ft usually eliminate the need for radical maneuvering at 30ft agl. That is a fantastic statement. Spot on, as it applies to both both radical, unplanned evasionary/emergency landings as well as planned HP landings. In order to result in safe landings, both must start with a good setup and as best a flight plan as you can manage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crazy 0 #17 April 1, 2004 QuoteIf private pilots are dying because they cannot land their aircraft at small airports (i.e. runways that are smaller than average but still well within the capabilities of their aircraft) the solution is to train them to land better, not to make all runways longer. You are definitely right; the solution is to train them to land better (as opposed to fly better). Better landings start with better plans, and planning is easier to train than flying skills. Besides, when the injury rate for landing out is 10 times higher than the average, the main problem is more likely poor plans rather than poor canopy control (the canopy flies the same everywhere). Superior flying skills don't make up for bad decisions.-- Come Skydive Asia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zoter 0 #18 April 1, 2004 Can I just add....as well as Canopy training...hows's about some sort of 'regulation' on wingloadings (tied to number of jumps)... As far as I am aware...the British Parachute Association have a 'working group' addressing the same issues as mentioned here for the USPA. From my perspective...it just seems that everyone wants to 'downsize' rapidly ...off student status....personally...if the USPA and BPA are looking for direction on canopy related incidents...some sort of formal control (rather than just an instructors 'recommendation') on canopy size/wingloading and shape should be introduced....perhaps with the diver having to take a supplementry canopy control course before being allowed to wingload over a certain limit....something like that. Reading the posts on dz.com....its frequent to hear of a low number jumper getting into trouble on a canopy thats 'unsuitable for them'.....everyone experienced preaches....'cut your teeth on something safe..'....fine...then make it a formal requirement... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #19 April 1, 2004 Quote hows's about some sort of 'regulation' on wingloadings (tied to number of jumps)... John LeBlanc gave a wonderful presentation at SDC last weekend regarding wingloading. The main point was along the lines that wing loading alone is not particularly well related to the physics of parachutes, fluid motion, and jumpers. Sure all these things are part of the picture but the simple ratio of canopy size to jumper exit weight misses some big effects [end LeBlanc part] It's not clear who should be subject to the proposed regulations -- based on the limited data we have experienced jumpers have shown they are just as capable of hurting themselves on small (and large) canopies as newer jumpers. Since we have very limited data on injuries, and the fatalities are well distributed across experience levels, it's difficult to assess the relative risks. Are we proposing regulating the more or less new jumpers to the sport, and why? IMO we have a big NIMBY problem here. To reduce the overall injury/fatality rate it seems that many people would regulate anyone but themselves. What justifies taking this decision away from a some or all of the participants? Putting aside the question of whether jump numbers are relevant at all, nearly everybody that participates in this sport is an adult and should be trusted to make their own decisions regarding the risks they want to take. Parachuting differs from general aviation in this respect b/c with the exclusion of tandems parachutists do not carry passengers and are not operating heavy machinery. Better analogies in my opinion would be rock climbing, bicycling, and skiing. Moreover, the theory of risk homeostasis suggests that the net results might not be what you expect -- again putting aside the question of whether there is any wing-loading-jump-number risk factor involved. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vt1977 0 #20 April 1, 2004 QuoteAs far as I am aware...the British Parachute Association have a 'working group' addressing the same issues as mentioned here for the USPA. The only problem is that the "working" group has been going on for years and years and years... and (this may be overly harsh!) but I'm yet to see any conclusions or even an interim report from them. Hmmmmmmmmmmm... Vicki Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #21 April 1, 2004 QuoteIt's not clear who should be subject to the proposed regulations -- based on the limited data we have experienced jumpers have shown they are just as capable of hurting themselves on small (and large) canopies as newer jumpers Jumpers with less than 1,000 jumps get killed MUCH more than jumpers with over 1,000. Its a fact. Just look at the fatality reports. You would have to be dense to not see a problem. You would have to be blind to not see how many 300 jump wonders are under canopies that are to HP and to high of a WL for their amount of EXPERIENCE.... You can fly around all day under canopy...But with 300 jumps you only have 300 LANDINGS. QuoteBetter analogies in my opinion would be rock climbing, bicycling, and skiing. Except with all those you do not start a series of events that WILL end with your death. They only become fatal if you really screw up...With skydiving it is fatal unless you perform correctly. And with those other sports you can stop and think. Not so with skydiving. Aviation and skydiving have many of the same common risks and skill sets. Guess what skydiving is an AVIATION activity. QuoteAre we proposing regulating the more or less new jumpers to the sport, and why? Three reasons. 1. They are most likley to be the ones that don't have any or less expereince. Who would do better on a Velocity 90 me or you? 2. You should not take away rigths from someone once they have them...Just like when the national drinking age went from 18 to 21...If you were already 18 you could still drink. 3. The new folks will learn this new way from the start...We would not have to "convince" them..They would know no other way. QuoteTo reduce the overall injury/fatality rate it seems that many people would regulate anyone but themselves. Delelop a test and give it to me...I'll pass it. as will most folks that already have 1,000 jumps...Why waste the time? QuoteMoreover, the theory of risk homeostasis suggests that the net results might not be what you expect -- again putting aside the question of whether there is any wing-loading-jump-number risk factor involved. Last year 11 people died under canopy...That was more than the 9 years from 1983 to 1992 That clearly shows a problem."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
Zoter 0 #22 April 1, 2004 Care to comment on the type of licence held by the majority of these 11 fatalities...?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,809 #23 April 1, 2004 >Sure all these things are part of the picture but the simple ratio of > canopy size to jumper exit weight misses some big effects Agreed; it's not perfect, just a reasonable approximation. >What justifies taking this decision away from a some or all of the > participants? A lot of deaths. >nearly everybody that participates in this sport is an adult and should > be trusted to make their own decisions regarding the risks they want >to take. We don't do that now. Try jumping a BASE rig at a DZ, or pulling at 1000 feet and explaining "I'm an adult, I can take those risks." The pull altitudes were put in place because people were killing themselves pulling at 500 feet, and it has worked to prevent fatalities. >Better analogies in my opinion would be rock climbing, bicycling, and skiing. Rock climbing and bicycling - no; they are individual sports, whereas skydiving is a sport that must be run by a (suable) DZO. Skiing _is_ a good comparison. There are a lot of rules at ski slopes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckbrown 0 #24 April 1, 2004 QuoteCare to comment on the type of licence held by the majority of these 11 fatalities...?? Or the jumper in SC with 3500 jumps, including 1300 on a Stilleto who broke his pelvis in 3 places doing a hook turn on his new Katana? Fortunately not a fatality, but it does seem to indicate that HP canopy landing problems are not confined to lower-time jumpers. I'm at a loss as to where & how to draw the line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #25 April 1, 2004 QuoteCare to comment on the type of licence held by the majority of these 11 fatalities...?? sure a "D"..But that means 200 jumps. NOW it means 500. 200 jumps is still not a lot."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